IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6581 of 2005 BAJARANG LAL AGARWAL SON OF LATE RAMJI AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF TEGHRA, P.S. TEGHRA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI…………………………………….…PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STATE CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, 4TH FLOOR, INDIRA BHAWAN, RAM CHARITRA SINGH PATH, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA 800001. 3. THE CERTIFICATE OFFICER, THE BIHAR STATE CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, 4TH FLOOR, INDIRA BHAWAN, RAM CHARITRA SINGH PATH, EAST BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA 800001…..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ram Das Singh, AC to SC-12 ----------- 03/ 02.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice dated 24.01.2002 (Annexure-1) issued by the Certificate Officer, Patna under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.106.24 lacs being the amount due against M/s Bajrang Roller Flour Mills Private Limited, a Company in which the petitioner was a director. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said notice was absolutely illegal and bad as the Certificate Officer was himself an Officer of BICICO itself and there were other illegalities in the said notice as well as initiation of the certificate proceeding. - 2 - 4. However, from the facts and circumstances of this case it is quite apparent that although the date of the impugned notice was 24.01.2002 but it is challenged in the instant writ petition which was filed on 18.05.2005 i.e. more than three years thereafter and in the meantime the certificate proceeding bearing Certificate Case No.01 of 2002 continued and an application was filed by the petitioner (Certificate Debtor) on 27.02.2002 raising preliminary objection before the Certificate Officer, but he by order dated 28.11.2002 held that the said objection cannot legally be treated as objection under section 9 of the Act as it was not signed and verified in the manner provided under the Act and hence the petitioner was directed to file an objection under section 9 of the Act. 5. It transpires that thereafter no objection under section 9 of the Act was filed by the petitioner and accordingly vide order dated 17.04.2003 it was held that in spite of notice of show-cause the Certificate Debtor had neither appeared nor filed any objection under section 9 of the Act, although more than a year had lapsed and the delay was unexplained and hence it required coercive measures as more than Rs.106 lacs of public money was involved in the case and finally Warrant of Arrest was directed to be issued against the petitioner. The said order was not challenged in any appeal under the provisions of the Act nor it was even challenged in the instant writ petition, although this writ petition was filed on 18.05.2005 after more than a year of the said order dated 17.04.2003. 6. This writ petition had been filed on 18.05.2005 and about six years have lapsed since then but in the meantime neither any - 3 - interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner either for any order of stay or for an early hearing of this case and the matter has remained pending since then without any interim order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has remained as it was six years back. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, nor does it find any occasion to interfere with the proceeding. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)