IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10045 of 2005 Sunil Kumar Singh, son of Virendra Singh, resident of village +P.O. Babnra. P.S. Barhara, District Ara, Bhojpur … Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Ara, Bhojpur 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ara, Bhojpur 3. The District Certificate Officer, Ara, Bhojpur. 4. The State of Bihar … Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vinita Singh, A.C. to A.A.G. # ---------- 03/ 25.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to hear the application of the petitioner under section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and also for directing the respondents to stay the proceeding of Distress Warrant against the petitioner during the pendency of the aforesaid application under section 9 of the Act. 3. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the materials on record, it transpires that Certificate Case No. 106 of 2003-04 was initiated against the petitioner by the Certificate Officer, Sadar Ara for recovery of the loan granted by the State Bank of India, Ara Branch. It further transpires that notice under section 7 of the Act was issued by respondent-authorities against the petitioner on 23.02.2004, whereafter the petitioner filed an application under section 9 of the Act and also appeared before the Certificate Officer stating that the certificate proceeding was time 2 barred and was also not maintainable as per the specific provisions of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed that the said application has not yet been disposed of by the Certificate Officer and in the meantime Distress Warrant has been issued on 06.08.2004 against the petitioner. Hence he has moved this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that although Distress Warrant had been issued against the petitioner as far back as on 06.08.2004, but till date no action has been taken against the petitioner as claimed by the petitioner’s counsel without any order of stay having been passed by this Court. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Certificate Officer, Ara (respondent no.3) to dispose of the application of the petitioner under section 9 of the Act within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if not yet been disposed of. 7. The said authority shall also not proceed with the Distress Warrant until the application of the petitioner is decided under section 10 of the Act. If the said authority decides the application of the petitioner against him, he will be at liberty to challenge the same before the appellate authority as provided under the Act. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )