IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10134 of 2005 RAJESHWAR TIWARY, SON OF LATE RAM KARAN TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMGARH, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABUA)………………………………...PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 3. MINING OFFICER, ROHTAS (SASARAM)-CUM-KAIMUR (BHABUA). 4. ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER, DISTRICT – ROHTAS (SASARAM). 5. DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DISTRICT –ROHTAS (SASARAM). 6. DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DISTRICT – KAIMUR (BAHBUA). 7. MINES INSPECTOR, DISTRICT – KAIMUR (BHABUA). 8. MINES INSPECTOR, DISTRICT – ROHTAS (SASARAM). 9. ZILA NILAM PATRA PADADHIKARI, DISTRICT – KAIMUR (BHABUA). 10. NILAM PATRA PADADHIKARI, PATNA, KHANNAN ANCHAL, PATNA. 11. STATION IN CHARGE, RAMGARH POLICE STATION, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABUA). ......RESPONDENTS. with CWJC No.14260 of 2005 RAJESHWAR TIWARY, SON OF LATE RAM KARAN TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMGARH, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABUA)………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR (BHABUA). 3. MINING OFFICER, ROHTAS (SASARAM)-CUM-KAIMUR (BHABUA). 4. ASSISTANT MINING OFFICER, DISTRICT – ROHTAS (SASARAM). 5. DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DISTRICT- KAIMUR (BHABUA). 6. ZILA NILAM PATRA PADADHIKARI, DISTRICT – KAIMUR (BHABUA). 7. STATION IN CHARGE, RAMGARH POLICE STATION, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABUA). 8. NILAM PATRA PADADHIKARI-CUM-CERRTIFICATE OFFICER, MINES, MAGADH ANCHAL, PATNA. ...........RESPONDENTS - 2 - ----------- 04/ 25.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent in both the cases. 2. In both the aforesaid cases, petitioner is the same and he has challenged notice under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) issued by the District Certificate Officer, Kaimur (respondent no.9) and has sought relief for quashing the entire proceeding of the two certificate cases. 3. Although learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner but the facts and circumstances clearly show that after issuance of notice under section 7 of the Act, the petitioner filed applications under section 9 of the Act in both the cases along with the requisites, but without disposing of the said applications, the said authority issued Warrant of Arrest against the petitioner which has also been challenged in the instant cases. 4. In the said circumstances, both the aforesaid writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the said Certificate Officer to decide the applications of the petitioner in both the cases under section 9 of the Act within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The authority concerned shall decide the said applications on merits in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. Till the disposal of the said - 3 - applications, the Warrant of Arrest issued against the petitioner shall remain stayed. 5. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Certificate Officer in the aforesaid two cases under section 10 of the Act, he will be at liberty to challenge the same before the appellate authority as provided in the Act. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)