IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14842 of 2005 Sanjiv Kumar Singh, son of late Ramasha Singh, resident of village Rajaura Akhtiyarpur, P.S. Muffasil, District Begusarai. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Agriculture Development Branch, S.B.I. through Branch Officer, Manjhaul, Begusarai 3. The District Certificate Officer, Begusarai …Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Bank : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Grijesh Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G. 1 ----- 05/ 03.11.2011 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) A certiorari setting aside the order dated 18.11.2003 passed by the respondent-Certificate Officer, Begusarai in Certificate Case No. 21/97-98 as contained in Annexure 2 by which the petitioner’s name was substituted on behalf of the certificate debtor and neither giving prior notice to him after a expiry of 31 months nor condonation of delay. (ii) certiorari setting aside the order dated 5.6.2005 passed by the Certificate Officer, Begusarai, whereby and whereunder the warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. (iii) For issuance of appropriate order/orders direction/directions to the respondents concern to not disturb the petitioner without any valid reasons. (iv) For any other relief/reliefs for which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of - 2 - the case as stated hereinbelow. 3, From the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that Certificate Case No. 21 of 1997-98 was instituted against one Ramasha Singh, father of the petitioner, who subsequently died and his heirs, including the petitioner, were substituted in the certificate case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said substitution was made without any notice or information to the petitioner. 4. However, it is an admitted fact that notice under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) was issued by the Certificate Officer in the aforesaid case to the petitioner, which was served upon him as is apparent from order dated 15.06.2005 passed in the aforesaid certificate case. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an objection under section 9 of the Act, which was rejected by the Certificate Officer on 11.08.2005. Hence the said order having been passed under section 10 of the Act, specific provision of appeal is made under section 60 of the Act. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority provided under the Act. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the said authority within fifteen days from today along with all the requisites and a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the said authority - 3 - shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ petition for a long period and shall decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law expeditiously. However, if the petitioner wants any interim relief, he will be at liberty to file an interlocutory application for the same before the appellate authority, who shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)