Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010146192026 2026:GAU-AS:9813 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3694/2026 BISHAL DEY S/O LATE BASUDEB DEY, R/O BOKAJAN TOWN, WARD NO 4, P/S- BOKAJAN, DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAWAN, 1, RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110001 2:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER NF RAILWAY LUMDING ASSAM PIN 782447 3:THE ESTATE OFFICER NF RAILWAY LUMDING ASSAM PIN 782447 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY 6 5:THE KARBI ANGLONG DISTRICT AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE KARBI ANGLONG DISTRICT COUNCIL Page No.# 2/4 ASSAM PIN 782460 6:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER IC BOKAJAN SUB DIVISION BOKAJAN 7:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KARBI ANGLON Advocate for the Petitioner : MS V V THANYU, MS M HAZARIKA,MR D KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, K A A C BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 17-07-2026 Heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 – 3; Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 4, 6 & 7; and Ms. S. Kemprai, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC for the respondent no. 5. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred to assail a Judgment dated 19.06.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in Title Appeal no. 77/2025. 3. The aforesaid Judgment has been passed by the learned District Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in an appeal preferred under Section 9 of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1971 [‘the 1971 Act’, for short] challenging an Order passed by the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Lumding under Section 5 of the 1971 Act in Eviction Case no. W/212/LM/4/W-4 dated Page No.# 3/4 19.08.2025, whereby the learned District Judge, while dismissing the appeal directed the appellant therein, who is the petitioner herein, to vacate and hand over possession of the premises in question to the Railway Administration within a period of 30 days from the date of the Judgment, failing which the Railway shall be at liberty to take steps for eviction in accordance with law and in terms of the Order of eviction which has been affirmed. 4. 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, the District Judge acts as a Court and the Order passed by him is 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 Order can be challenged only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In a subsequent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Vivek V. Gawde, 2024 SCC OnLine 3722, which has been passed in reference to the Judgment in Nandini J. Shah [supra] and another Three-Judges Bench decision in Radhe Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others, [2015] 5 SCC 423, it has been held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the decision of a civil court by issuing a writ of certiorari is not Page No.# 4/4 maintainable and is to be dismissed at the threshold with respect to its primary relief. 6. In view of such settled position of law, the writ petition is one which is not to be entertained. 7. Ms. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In view of the above submission made by Ms. Hazarika, the writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn, with the liberty to avail appropriate remedy permissible under the law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant