IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6568 of 2008 SHREE HANUMAN SUGAR & IND.LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With C.W.J.C. No. 6571 of 2008 Shree Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. Versus. The State of Bihar & ors. With C.W.J.C. No. 6721 of 2008 Shree Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. Versus The State of Bihar & ors. C.W.J.C. No. 6722 of 2008 Shree Hanuman Sugar & Industries Ltd. Versus. The State of Bihar & Ors. ------------- 6 16/7/2008 Heard Mr. Y.V.Giri, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the aforementioned cases as also Mr. Anshuman Singh, J.C. to A.A.G.3 on behalf of the State. In all these four writ petitions Annexures 8 and 9 are under challenge, whereby and whereunder, the District Certificate Officer having rejected objection under section 9 of the Act has proceeded to issue notice for realization of the certificate amount. Counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that as a matter of fact even if the impugned order is accepted to be correct in its first part that the objection filed by the petitioner was not pressed, still the District Certificate Officer could not have absolved himself of his liability under the statutes, namely, Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, of passing a reasoned order on such objection. He points out that the order impugned dated 15.2.2008 on its face will indicate that the objection came 2 to be rejected only on the ground that the same was not pressed. Counsel for the petitioner in this context also relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of ‘Madan Gopal Lal Vs. State of Bihar & ors’ reported in 2002 (1) P.L.J.R. page 438. On the other hand, Mr Anshuman Sisngh, leaned counsel for the State submits that the said order dated 15.2.2008 is appealable order and a better remedy for the petitioner was to file an appeal in terms of section 60 of the Act. Having considered the aforementioned submissions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that when the order impugned has not been passed as per requirement of the statutes and also the petitioners could not avail an adequate opportunity to place their cases on account of some unforeseen circumstances, this Court, instead of relegating the petitioners to an alternative remedy of appeal, would consider it appropriate that the petitioners should be given one more chance to place their case before the District Certificate Officer himself who is required to pass such an order in terms of section 9 read with section 10 of the Act. The aforesaid view of this Court is also fully supported by the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Madan Gopal Lal (Supra). Therefore, considering the nature of the order that has been passed, this Court would direct the District Certificate Officer to decide 3 the objection of the petitioner under section 9 of the Act afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners would appear before the District Certificate Officer within a period of four weeks from today. In the event the petitioners appear, the District Certificate Officer will fix a firm date for hearing of objection but if on such date of hearing fixed by the District Certificate Officer, the petitioners are not represented and/or seek unnecessary adjournment, it will be open for the District Certificate Officer to pass an appropriate exparte order, keeping in view the spirit of section 9 of the Act which requires the District Certificate Officer to dispose of objection on merits. In the result, the impugned order as contained in Annexures 8 and 9, in all the four cases, are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Certificate Officer for an appropriate decision. Let a copy of this order be also given to Mr. Anshuman Singh, J.C. to A.A.G.3. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar