IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9392 of 2010 MIRTUNJAY UPADHYA @ MRITUNJAY UPADHYA S/O RAM DENI UPADHAYA R/O VILL.- BELWA RAJ BAIRAGI TOLA, P.O. AND P.S.- TURKOULIA, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN. ………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OFFICER, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, JIWDHARA. BRANCH, EAST CHAMPARAN. ….. RESPONDENTS. ------- For the petitioner : Mr. D.K.Tondon, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K.Pandey, Advocate. ------- 06/ 03.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-State of Bihar as well as learned counsel for the Bank of India. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging certificate proceeding, including order dated 21.11.2008 passed by he District Certificate Officer, East Champaran ( respondent no.2) in Certificate Case No.34/ B.O.I/ 2002-03 (Annexure-1) and also for release of the petitioner from jail custody. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a loanee and a certificate proceeding had been initiated against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises three points. Firstly, that the said proceeding was taken up and finally decided on 21.11.2008 without any notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. The second point taken by the petitioner is that the proceeding is time barred as the loan was taken in the year 1986 and the proceeding was initiated in the year 2001. The third point taken by learned counsel for 2 the petitioner is that the authorities have violated the provision of Clause 15(2) of Schedule I of the Act and in support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of a bench of this court in case of Birendra Kumar Das Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2001 (4) P.L.J.R.396. 4. So far the first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is quite apparent from the ordersheet that on 25.08.2008 the certificate officer had specifically found that the service report of notice under Section 7 of the Act had been received, whereas from order dated 21.11.2008 it transpires that even after service of notice much earlier no objection under Section 9 of the Act was filed by the petitioner and hence it was rightly presumed by the authority that certificate debtor had admitted the amount of loan. Thus, the certificate case was decreed in terms of requisition and the certificate debtor was directed to pay the said amount within thirty days failing which action was to be taken. 5. The petitioner has relied upon order dated 10.03.2010 passed in the proceeding showing that service report had not come but the said order is much subsequent to the decree passed in the case and hence the said order appears to have been passed without perusing the record of the case, including earlier specific orders passed by the Certificate Officer dated 25.08.2008 and 21.11.2008 and in that view of the matter, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner on the ground of such mistakes. 6. It further transpires that after the said order was passed by the Certificate Officer on 21.11.2008, neither the petitioner 3 paid the amount of loan nor he challenged the said order or the proceeding before the appellate authority as specific provision of appeal has been provided under Section 60 of the Act. 7. All the three points raised by the petitioner in this court could have been very well considered and decided by the appellate authority after looking into the factual aspects of this case as well as materials available on record on all the said three points. Avoidance of clear statutory provision of appeal and filing of writ petitions, although specific alternative remedy was available, cannot be encouraged as it tends to make the provision of law ineffective and to unnecessarily burden this court with such cases in which questions of facts are involved. 8. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil (S.N.Hussain,J.)