IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16758 of 2010 RAM SAGER YADAV, SON OF KHUSHI LAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHOLI RAHI, P.S. GHOGHARDIHA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI -----PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY-CUM- COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2.THE COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI 3.THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PHULPARAS, MADHUBANI 4.THE CERTIFICATE OFFICER, GHOGHARDIHA, MADHUBANI 5.THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/ THANA ADHYAKSHA, GHOGHARDIHA, P.S. GOGHARDIHA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI--------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Madhav Prasad Yadav, Advocate Mr.Avinash Kumar-I, Advocate For the State :Mr.Malendu, AC to AAG 8 ----- 2. 05.10.2010 The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 27.8.2009 issued by the Certificate Officer, Goghardiha, Madhubani in Certificate Case No. 8 of 2009-10 and also for quashing the said Certificate Case. In the said certificate the petitioner has been shown as certificate debtor for Rs.1,01,759/-. A settlement was made with the petitioner for collection of tolls of ground rent inside the road of Nagar Panchayat Goghardiha, Madhubani for an amount of Rs.1,80,250/-, out of which Rs.75,000/- was paid at the time of acceptance of bid on 6.3.2007 and on 31.3.2007. The petitioner claims to have further paid Rs.10,000/- and 15,125/-. The petitioner also claims deduction of Rs.6,700/- on account of decision of 2 the Government to give the benefit due to heavy rains and flood. In addition to the above the petitioner seeks further deduction of Rs.30,000/- at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for each Monday claiming that there are 60 Mondays in a year. In addition to the above deductions are also claimed by the petitioner on account of hindrance created by certain local rangdars in collection of tolls and in certain areas by the Market Secretary. According to the petitioner, his applications before the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat filed on 16.4.2008 and 21.8.2009 have not been considered and if the same had been considered nothing would remain to be paid. This Court is of the view that if a notice has been issued to the petitioner in the certificate case then he is required to file his objection before the Certificate Officer under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act and thereafter the objection has to be disposed of by the Certificate Officer. The various issues raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3 The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Certificate Officer or other competent authority for the redressal of his grievances. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/