IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA NO.984 OF 2006 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHAGALPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BHAGALPUR VERSUS AMIT KEJARIWAL & ORS ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Dhrub Narayan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha For respondent No.1& 2 : Mr. Ravi Shankar Dwivedi, Advocate For the respondents 3 to 7 : Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra, GP -X --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 3rd September, 2008 We heard Mr. Dhrub Narayan, Senior Counsel for the appellant. 2. In our considered view, the order passed by the single judge does not call for any interference by us. 3. It is pertinent to notice that an appeal came to be filed by the debtor before the Collector –cum – appellate authority under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1940, praying before him for waiver of payment of interest and for payment of dues in instalments. After hearing the parties, it appears that the Collector –cum – appellate authority vide order dated 29th August, 2003, permitted the dues to be paid by the debtor in six instalments. That the debtor made - 2 - payment as directed in the order of the Collector dated 29th August, 2003, is not in dispute. After the entire payment was made, the Collector by his order dated 18th October, 2003, observed that the certificate case before the District Certificate Officer stands closed as the claim has been satisfactorily settled between the parties. 4. Although a revision was preferred by the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, aggrieved by the order dated 18th October, 2003, but the fact of the matter is that the order dated 29th August, 2003 never came to be challenged by the Corporation. 5. Since the order dated 29th August, 2003 was never challenged by the Corporation and based on that the debtor discharged his liability by payment in instalments, the Commissioner cannot be said to have erred in dismissing the revision application. 6. The senior counsel for the appellant could not show us anything, from which it can be gathered that the order dated 29th August, 2003 was challenged by the Corporation. That the order dated 29th August, 2003 was passed in the presence of the Corporation is also not in dispute. 7. In the light of the order dated 29th August, 2003, upon payment of instalments, obviously, the debtor could not be fastened with any further liability. 8. Seen thus, the consideration of the matter by the single - 3 - judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 9. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil/