IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17639 of 2008 1. RAS BIHARI SINGH 2. RAM NAGINA SINGH, BOTH SONS OF LATE MAHESH SINGH. 3. SHEO KUMARI DEVI WIFE OF RAS BIHARI SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MUSHIBPUR, P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, SASARAM. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, SASARAM BRANCH, SASARAM. 4. DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OFFICER, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 5. RAM BILASH RAMAN SON OF NOW KNOWN OFFICER IN CHARGE MUFFASIL, P.S. SASARAM. ----------- For the petitioner: Syed Alamdar Hussain with syed Asghar Nagmi, Advocates. For Bank : Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Anis Akhtar, AC to A.A.G.-10. --- 2/ 11.05.2010 Petitioners do not deny that they had taken loan from the State Bank of India for purchase of a tractor some time in the year 2000. Since they faced certain financial crisis and difficulty in agriculture, they did not generate enough money for repayments. When there was default in making repayment the Bank initiated a proceeding under Public Demand Recovery Act and a certificate case came to be filed which was registered as Certificate Case No. 50 of 2006-07. 2. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no statement of account was furnished and as such the petitioners did not have any clear - 2 - indication as to what their liability was. The requisitions furnished by the petitioners were accepted as the gospel truth which was quantified to Rs.2, 91, 854.94 and the Certificate Officer without waiting for the petitioners to file any objection, issued warrant of arrest and under threat and coercion the money was deposited. In fact the petitioners had to buy their freedom by depositing such money. They are aggrieved in the manner in which the law has been enforced against them as also the fact that these petitioners have been prevented from raising any valid objection to the quantification or the claim as made. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision in the case of Binod Kumar Nayak Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.; reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 455 where a Bench of this Court had laid down a detailed procedure for the Bank to comply coupled with the obligation imposed upon the Certificate Officer before setting of the law into motion. It’s an other issue that the guidelines laid down in the said judgment are being followed more in breach rather than in spirit. 4. Instances of the Certificate Officers adopting arm twisting method for reasons have come to the notice of this Court. Law lays down a procedure and the procedure has to be followed. It is not only about recovery of outstanding loan from borrowers. Borrower too have rights - 3 - under section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act. It cannot be allowed to become illusory in application by permitting the Certificate Officer to implement the law in such manners. Instances have come to this Court where even without proper notice under section 7 of the Act, distress warrants were issued. 5. Let the petitioners appear before the Certificate Officer. The Bank will be obliged to furnish the statement of accounts to the petitioners now along with the payments which have come to be made by them due to arrest and detention and final figure will be indicated . The petitioners will thereafter either accept the said amount or the statement or they may file objection which will be treated as an objection under section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act. The Certificate Officer deal with the issue after adjudicating the objection. No coercive action shall be taken before such adjudication in the aforesaid certificate case. The writ petition stands disposed of with observation as above. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J ) BTiwary/