IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15719 of 2005 Rajesh Kumar son of late Sundarlal, resident of Mohalla-Kalibagh, Ward no. 10, P.O.+P.S.-Bettiah Town, District-West Champaran. .......Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Certificate Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. 3. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bettiah, Branch, Bettiah, West Champaran. 4. The Chairman, Punjab National Bank-V, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 5. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Bettiah Branch, Bettiah, West Champaran. 6. The Chairman, The Oriental Insurance Company, Ltd., Oriental House, A-25/27, Asafali Road, New Delhi. .........Respondents ----------- 03 27.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Bank and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (I) For issuance of writ/order/direction, particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the entire certificate proceeding in certificate case no. 7/2002 communicated to the petitioner through notice dated 13.6.02 issued by the respondent no. 2 under section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter called as the Act) for recovery of Rs. 1,63,288/- and received by the petitioner on 22.07.2002. (II) For quashing the show-cause notice issued in form No. 17 on 27.7.04 by the respondent no. 2 for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner. (III) For any other relief/reliefs which your Lordships may deem fit and proper. 2 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid certificate case was initiated against the petitioner, in which notice under section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the shake of brevity) was sent to the petitioner, whereafter he filed an objection under section 9 of the Act but till date it has not been decided and in the meantime steps for arrest of the petitioner is being taken by the authorities. 4. Learned counsel for Punjab National Bank submits that objection under section 9 of the Act had been filed by the petitioner much earlier and it must have been decided and only thereafter such action was being taken by the authorities concerned. 5. Although, six years have lapsed but no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of said respondents nor there is any material on record to suggest that the objection filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Act had been decided, rather it is specific claim of the petitioner in paragraph no. 21 of his writ petition that the said objection has not been decided. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Certificate Officer, West Champaran and if the objection of the petitioner under section 9 of the Act has not been decided by the authorities under section 10 of the Act, the same must be decided by the said authorities expeditiously and till then no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in the aforesaid certificate proceeding. If an order under section 10 of the Act is passed by the authorities 3 concerned, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same before the appellate authority as provided under the Act. Safik (S.N. Hussain, J.)