WP(C) 5423/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal today itself. The petitioner, by this petition, has challenged the proceedings in Baki jai Case ~ no.23/05-06/PF, no.36/05-06/PF and 03/08-09/DL ~ and the order dated 26th August 2010 issued by Certificate Officer, Cachar, Silchar in said proceedi ngs issuing notice under Section 7 of Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act 1913(in short, the 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 n on payment 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 connected with the affairs of M/s Bhuban Valley Tea Estate in respect of which the provident fund amount was due and payable, initiation of such proceeding aga inst 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 und er provisions of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 only, no proceeding can be initiated under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act 1913(in short the Act). I have heard Mr BN Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr BJ Talukdar, learned state counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 5. Also, h eard Ms M Devi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2,3 & 4. 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 f ifty thousand and one hundred sixty-eight, and consequently ought not to have is sued warrant of arrest. It has also been submitted by learned counsel that since the dues payable on account of the provident fund is recoverable as arrear of l and revenue, it can be recovered by following procedures laid out in Assam Land & Revenue Regulation 1886, and not by following the procedures laid down in Act 1913. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that Bakijai proceeding initiated by t he Certificate Officer, Cachar, Silchar, needs to be quashed. 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 to show cause and if the pe titioner has any objection against that, he may do so by filing a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which has not been done by the present petitioner. It has also been submitted that since the plea raised by the present petitioner that h e is in no way connected with M/s Bhuban Valley Tea Estate is a disputed questio n of fact it cannot be gone into in writ proceeding conveniently, and Section 9 of the Act having provided for filing of petition denying the liability pursuant to the notice issued under Section 7, the petitioner ought to have availed such opportunity. 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 ground of challenge of the proceeding by the petitioner that he is in no way connected with M/s Bhuban Valley Tea Estate, is a disputed question of fact, such dispute can be conveniently resolved by Ce rtificate Officer under Section 10 of the Act, in the event the petitioner files the petition denying the liability, as required under Section 9 of the Act, but it has not been done by the petitioner till date. That being the position, this petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Certificate Officer, Silchar, by filing the petit ion under Section 9 of the Act, and in case such a petition is filed, the same s hall be decided by the certificate officer, as required under Section 10 of the Act. It is needless to say the petitioner is also at liberty to raise the plea o f jurisdiction of Certificate Officer, as noticed above. The said petition has t o be filed by 21st May 2011. Certificate Officer shall, thereafter, decide the p etition with a speaking order by 20th June 2011. Till that date, that is 20th Ju ne 2011, the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall not be execut ed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.