IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6353 of 2005 1. PATEL SINGH @ PAPPU SINGH SON OF RAMDEO SINGH. 2. PAPPU SINGH SON OF RAMDEO SINGH, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NUAON, P.S.- DURGAWATI, DISTRICT- KAIMUR(BHABUA) …….PETITIONERS. 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(BHABUA). 5. DISTRICT MINING OFFICER, DISTRICT-KAIMUR (BHABUA). 6. MINES INSPECTOR, DISTRICT-KAIMUR (BHABUA). 7. MINES INSPECTOR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS (SASARAM). 8. NILAM PATRA PADADHIKARI-CUM-CERTIFICATE OFFICER, PATNA ANCHAL, PATNA. 9. STATION IN CHARGE, DURGAWATI POLICE STATION, P.S.- DURGAWATI, DISTRICT-KAIMUR(BHABUA). .. RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ram Das Singh, AC to SC-12. ----------- 05. 09.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging demand notice/certificate dated 15.02.2002 in Certificate Case No. 226 of 2001-02, issued by Nilam Patra Padadhikari-Cum-Certificate Officer, Patna by which the petitioner no.2 was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 55,505/- as against the dues for the Session 2000-01 in connection with running the Brick Kiln and also challenging the demand notice/certificate dated 19.05.2003 in Certificate Case No. 02/2003-04 issued by Nilam Patra Padadhikari-cum-Certificate Officer, Patna by which petitioner no. 1 was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 70,375/- as against dues for the Session 2002-03 in connection with running the Brick Kiln and also for quashing the - 2 - entire proceeding as against these petitioners pursuant to Certificate Case No. 226/2001-02 and Certificate Case No. 2/2003-04, pending in the Court of Certificate Officer, Patna Anchal, Patna and to direct the authority to start a fresh proceeding in accordance with law by issuing a fresh notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and to give proper opportunity to these petitioners for placing of their case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the notices earlier issued under Section 7 of the Act were not legal because they were not served upon the petitioners and hence they had filed the instant writ petition and interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 19.05.2003. He also avers that in view of the said interim order of this court, the certificate cases have not proceeded beyond Section 7 of the Act. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the materials on record, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file an application before the Certificate Officer under Section 9 of the Act denying his liability and challenging the demand notice/certificate and its enforcement specially when in the meantime, he has already deposited the certain amounts. 5. In the said circumstances specially in view of non- service of the notices properly upon the petitioners which is - 3 - claimed by the petitioner and is not denied by the respondents who have not filed any counter affidavit in spite of specific direction of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2005 even after passage of six years, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file application under Section 9 of the Act within 30 days in the aforesaid certificate case denying his liability and challenging the notice under Section 7 of the Act, specially when, according to the claim of the petitioner, he has already deposited certain amount. If such an application is filed the authority concerned shall decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law as per the provision of Section 10 of the Act. Devendra/ ( S.N. Hussain, J. )