Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010096152026 2026:GAU-AS:7321 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2701/2026 SRI SUSHIL BAID AND ANR S/O- LATE HULASH CHAND BAID. R/O- AASHI HOLIRAM HERITAGE, FLAT NO.E405, KRC ROAD, BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI-781009, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM 2: SMT. SHOBHA DEVI PATWARI W/O- SRI RAJKUMAR PATWARI. R/O- BIJOYNAGAR P.O. AND P.S.- BIJOYNAGAR PIN- 781122 DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS MINISTR OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAWAN, 1, RAISINA ROAD, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, DELHI-110001. 2:N.F. RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER . N.F. RAILWAY RANGIA DIVISION MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781011 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 3:DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/GHY. NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY/MALIGAON MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781011 DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K JAIN, MS. S DUTTA,MS. P CHIRANIA,MS. C AGARWAL,MR. N J DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, RAILWAY, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 25-05-2026 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. C. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel for all the respondents. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred to assail a Judgment dated 07.04.2026 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup [M], Guwahati in Misc. Appeal no. 14/2025. The said appeal was preferred under Section 9 of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1971. In the appeal, the petitioner as the appellant had challenged an Order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Estate Officer in connection with Eviction Case no. EO/MLG/298/2025 whereby, direction was passed for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said Order. 3. A three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and others, [2018] 15 SCC 356, has held that while exercising power under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, the Appellate Officer does not act as a persona designata but in his capacity as a pre-existing judicial authority in the district. Being part of the district judiciary, Page No.# 3/3 the judge acts as a Court and the order passed by him will be an order of the Subordinate Court against which remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be availed on the matters delineated for exercise of such jurisdiction. It has been categorically held that an Order passed under Section 9 of the 1971 Act as an Appellate Officer can be challenged only under Article 227 of the Constitution and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Judgment in Nandini J. Shah [supra] has been appropriately referred to in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others vs. Vivek V. Gawde etc., 2024 SCC OnLine 3722. 4. As the writ petition is not found maintainable, it is accordingly dismissed, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy permissible under the law, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant