WP(C) 5766/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY The petitioner, by this petition, has challenged the proceedings in Bakijai Case ~ No.23/05-06/PF, No.36/05-06/PF and 03/08-09/DL ~ and the order dated 26th Aug ust 2010 issued by Certificate Officer, Cachar, Silchar in said proceedings issu ing notice under Section 7 of Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act 1913(in short, t he Act), and also the order dated 15th September 2010 whereby and where under a warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the petitioner for non payme nt of dues to the tune of rupees thirty-four lakh fifty thousand and one hundred sixty-eight. Ground of challenge is that the petitioner being in no way connect ed with the affairs of M/s Bhuban Valley Tea Estate in respect of which the prov ident fund amount was due and payable, initiation of such proceeding against the petitioner is illegal. It is also the contention of petitioner that in any case the provident fund dues being recoverable as arrear of land revenue under provi sions of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 only, no proceeding can be initi ated under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act 1913(in short the Act). I have heard Mr M Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs VL Singh, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 5. Also, hea rd learned counsel for the other respondents. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sin ce petitioner is in no way connected with the affairs of M/s Bhuban Valley Tea E state, Certificate Officer ought not to have issued notice under Section 7 of th e Act asking him along with others to pay the sum of rupees thirty-four lakh fif ty thousand and one hundred sixty-eight, and consequently ought not to have issu ed warrant of arrest. It has also been submitted by learned Senior Counsel that since the dues payable on account of the provident fund is recoverable as arrear of land revenue, it can be recovered by following procedures laid out in Assam Land & Revenue Regulation 1886, and not by following the procedures laid out in the Act. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that Bakijai proceeding initiated b y the Certificate Officer, Cachar, Silchar, needs to be quashed. It has further been submitted that the petitioner, though on receipt of the notice issued under the Act filed the petition denying the liability contending that he being consu ltant and visiting agent of the tea estate in question he cannot be made liable for non-payment of any provident fund dues, the Certificate Officer has not deci ded the said petition as required under Section 10 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the Certificate Officer, by the order dated 26th August 2010, had issued the notice under the pr ovisions of the Act asking the petitioner and others, and the petitioner has fil ed objection against the same by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act. I t has also been submitted that since the dispute raised by present petitioner th at he is in no way connected with M/s Bhuban Valley Tea Estate is a disputed que stion of fact it cannot be gone into in writ proceeding conveniently, is require d to be gone into by the Certificate Officer under the Act. It appears that the Certificate Officer has issued the notice under Sect ion 7 of the Act. Section 9 provides for filing of the petition denying the liab ility by the noticee. Section 10 requires hearing and determination of such a pe tition filed by the noticee. Since the petitioner has filed the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act contending that he is not liable for payment of provident fund dues, the Certificate Officer under Section 10 is required to decide the sa me by a speaking order, which has not been done so far. That being the position, this petition is disposed of directing the Cert ificate Officer, Silchar, to decide the petition filed by the petitioner under S ection 9 of the Act, as required under Section 10 of the Act, by a speaking orde r by 30th May 2011. Till that date, that is the 30th May 2011, the warrant of ar rest issued against the petitioner shall not be executed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.