IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.987 of 2007 1. DILIP KUMAR DAS 2. Ashok Kumar Das 3. Bimal Kumar Das all are sons of Late Jyotish Chandra Das 4. Mostt. Pratima Rani Das wife of Lae Rajni Kumar Das All resident of village Khari, P.O. Balia Bolown via Mukuriya, P.S. Barsoi, District Katihar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Certificate Officer, Katihar. 3. The Assistant General Manager, Region III, State Bank of India, Purnea. 4. The Branch Manager, Bagadar Branch State Bank of India, P.O. Mukuria, Via Barsoighat, District Katihar. 5. Sri Bijay Singhania, Proprietor, Sonalika International Baniya Tola, Katihar. 6. Bihar Agro Industries, Near N. V. Officer, Nawrattan Hata; N.H. 31, Purnea District Purnea. 7. Krishna Krishi Kendra, M.G. Road, Katihar. 8. Sagar Engineering Works, Mahmood Chowk, P.s. & Distt. Katihar. ----------- 4 03/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for he petitioners, learned counsel for the State Bank of India as well as learned counsel for the State. A certificate proceeding, namely, Certificate Case No. 1 of 2004-05 came to be initiated against the petitioners when they failed to pay the loan amount to the respondent Bank for purchase of Tractor, Trailer and cultivator. The - 2 - total amount sanctioned in this regard was Rs.3,39,626. The loan was sanctioned some time in the year 2001 and in lieu thereof the petitioners had pledged 10.82 acres of land as well as some movable properties. On an earlier occasion when the proceeding was initiated C.W.J.C. No. 6912 of 2006 came to be filed. One of the grounds urged was that the objection under section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act was not being decided but the fact stood that the objection stood decided. The petitioners accepted the receipt of tractor, trailer and cultivator. Direction was issued to the petitioners to pay back the loan amount within a time frame. The petitioners are back again to the High Court challenging the orders contained in annexure-1 series. The stand of the respondents to the writ application of the petitioners is that they are not approaching the High Court with clean hands on this issue. After having accepted the liability and receipt of the tractor and other equipments before the Certificate Officer, they cannot be permitted to turn round and disown the liability. Findings to the objection taken by the petitioners under section 9 of the Act are well - 3 - recorded and well founded and in absence of any infirmity in law pointed out by the petitioners, no relief can be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter submits that the petitioners have already filed case before the Consumer forum against non supply of equipments along with the tractor and the matter has not yet been decided. The Bank is not co-operating in the case and, therefore, it is not reaching a finality. Pendency of a case in the Consumer Court will be no ground for interfering with the ongoing certificate proceeding; more so, when the petitioners are taking two kinds of stand with regard to the loan and the equipments which have come to be supplied to them, one before the Certificate Officer and another may be before the Consumer forum. The outcome of the decision of the consumer forum will have a bearing on the findings which may come to be recorded by the forum. If the petitioners succeed they may be well compensated by the consumer forum in this regard but pendency of the said case is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The petitioners will be well advised to appear before the Certificate Officer and take the proceeding - 4 - to its logical end. This writ application is dismissed in absence of any illegality been pointed out. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)