IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7907 of 2006 Sri Niwas Choubey son of Late Ram Cheej Choubey, Managing Director of M/s Sundeep Pipe and Chemical Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Area, Buxar, resident of Civil Line, P.S.- Buxar (T), District-Buxar. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Certificate Officer, Buxar. 3. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through the Executive Engineer Electric Department, Bhojpur. ….Respondents. ----------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents-State : Assistant Counsel to AAG-4. -------------- 04/ 21.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) To issue an appropriate writ rule in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 09.09.2005/25.09.2005 passed in Case No.6/95- 96 passed by the District Certificate Officer (respondent no.2) Buxar which is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. (ii) To issue an appropriate writ rule and hold that the Certificate Proceeding was not maintainable as such what ever orders have been passed by respondent no.2 is without jurisdiction and nullity in law. (iii) To issue an appropriate writ or direction to commanding upon the respondents to discharge their statutory obligation in accordance with law. (iv) To grant any other relief/ reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 2 - 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid certificate proceeding is with respect to electricity dues of a company which is incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and the only certificate debtor is the Managing Director of the Company. He further submits that this Court has already decided in case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2002 (2) P.L.J.R. 553 that the Director cannot be proceeded against. It is further stated that the order by which the petitioner’s objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) has been disposed of, is completely a non-speaking order. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, when the objection of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act has already been disposed of by the order of the Certificate Officer, the petitioner has got a remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Act and in that appeal petitioner can challenge the said order on any grounds which is available to the petitioner. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under the provisions of the Act raising all his grievances. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within four weeks from today along with requisites and a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to filing of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. - 3 - 6. If the petitioner wants any interim relief, he may file an interlocutory application for the same before the authority concerned which shall decide said application without any delay. Sunil ( S. N. Hussain, J.)