IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2205 of 2007 RAJENDRA PRASAD VERMA, son of Late Darshan Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Pandrima, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Gaya. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. District Certificate Office, Gaya. 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest, Division, Gaya. 5. Forest Officer, Gaya. ……..Respondents. ----------- 02. 02.02.2010 This is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioner against a proceeding started against him under Public Demand Recovery Act. Earlier a certificate case No. 2 of 1985-86 was lodged. This was for realization of a sum of Rs. 69,515.81/- for non deposit by the petitioner for the collection of Kendu Leaves which he had made in the year 1982. When the petitioner filed first writ application i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 1045 of 2004, the High Court was pleased to interfere with the proceeding on the ground that the requisition filed by the Divisional Forest Officer was neither in the statutory form No. 2 of schedule 2 of the act nor it was properly filled and verified. Taking into consideration the ratio of the case of Hari Prasad Agarwala versus The State of Bihar & ors 1976 PLJR 265, the proceeding was quashed vide order dated 2 20.04.2005(Annexure-3). The High Court however while quashing the said proceeding allowed the Divisional Forest Officer to make another requisition in accordance with law subject to the provisions of limitation and other provisions of the act and rules. The second requisition contained in Annexure-4 is again under challenge in the present writ application. The averment of the petitioner is that even this requisition is not properly filled and therefore the requirements of Section 4 and 5 have not been complied. Even the observation of the High Court with regard to limitation has not been considered by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya. Requisition (Annexure-4) is on record. The Court has gone through the requisition and is not in agreement with the contention of the petitioner that this is also similar in nature to the earlier writ application. If the requisition is in the format duly filled up, signed by the requisitioning authority, to that extent the writ application of the petitioner must fail. The other aspect on the submission of the petitioner with regard to limitation, this Court can only record this that it is not for the requisitioning authority to examine the question of limitation and other objections. They will have to be considered by the Certificate Officer. Petitioner would be well advised to appear before the 3 Certificate Officer, file his objection under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act and raise all those questions including the question of limitation. The Certificate Officer would be statutorily bound to decide such objections before taking any further action against the petitioner. The writ application is dismissed but liberty as above is granted to the petitioner. Shageer (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)