IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5286 of 2006 1. Bhagwan Singh, son of late Ramu Singh 2. Sheo Shankar Singh, son of late Narsingh Singh 3. Smt. Maina Devi, wife of late Narsingh Singh …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Nawada, District Nawada 3. The District Certificate Officer, Nawada, District Nawada 4. The State Bank of India, Warsaliganj Branch through the Branch Manager 5. The Branch Manager, The State Bank of India, Warsaliganj Branch, District Nawada …Respondents --------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Advocate For the Bank : Mr. Binod Bihari Sinha, Advocate -------------------------------- 04/ 05.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs – (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 09.02.2006 passed by respondent no.2 in Case No. 08/M/2005 (State Bank of India, Warsaliganj Branch vrs. Bhafwan Singh and others) whereby and whereunder respondent no.2 has been pleased to set aside the order dated 14.12,2004 passed by respondent no.3 in Certificate Case No.53/1996-97, by which the learned Certificate Officer was pleased to reject the certificate case filed against the petitioner, holding that the demand is barred by limitation, applicable in certificate proceeding. (ii) For a declaration that the limitation in certificate proceeding is to be counted from the date of 2 acknowledgement till the date of filing of requisition before the Certificate Officer as contemplated under section 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act and since the requisition for initiation of instant certificate proceeding was filed before respondent no.3 on 05.11.1996, therefore, even though the petitioner had acknowledged the loan on 20.05.1993, the certificate proceeding was barred by limitation and respondent no.2 erred to hold that the requisition was filed on 12.01.1996. (iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner shall be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. It transpires that against the order passed by the Certificate Officer in favour of the petitioner, the authorities of the Bank filed an appeal before the Collector under section 60 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and the said appeal was allowed by the Collector, Nawadah. 4. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition although a revision has been provided against such appellate orders under the provision of section 62 of the Act. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the revisional authority against the impugned order. If such a revision is filed by the petitioner along with an application for condoning the delay as well as a copy of this order, the revisional authority shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ petition and shall 3 decide the revision on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)