IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18038 of 2008 SRI NAGENDRA KUMAR SON OF LATE SUDHIR PRASAD MANDAL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MALIKPUR, P.O. & P.S. PIRPAINTI DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER CUM THE CERTIFICATE OFFICER, BHAGALPUR. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY, PIRPAINTI, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE MANAGER, PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY, PIRPAINTI, BHGALPUR. ----------- For the petitioner :- M/S Mukesh Kumar Jha & Tarun Prasad Mandal For the State :- Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, A.C. TO G.P. XII For Respondent nos. 3 & 4: Mr. Sanjay Kumar ----- 2 11/05/2010 Petitioner was/is member of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society (hereinafter called the PACS) of Pirpainti at Bhagalpur. On his request the Society granted him loan to the extent of Rs.23,000/- in the year 2000 which has been dubbed as consumer loan. Interest at the rate of 21% was to be charged on the said loan. When the petitioner failed in repayment, Certificate case No. 23 of 2008-09 came to be initiated where the requisition indicated the outstanding dues to be Rs.71,198/-. Petitioner has raised objection under section 9 of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act before the Certificate Officer which was filed by him on 1.9.2008. - 2 - According to him his objection has not been decided till date but enforcement of the certificate is being made illegally. First submission of the petitioner is that the PACS are not authorized to give commercial loans and, therefore, the so called consumer loan given to the petitioner is not a consumer loan but ought to be treated as an agricultural loan. Other submission is that the rate of interest charged on the said loan is excessive, arbitrary and ought to be interfered with. Yet another contention is that the certificate case itself cannot be maintained for recovery of dues. Learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit and rebutted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Submission is that under section 52(1)(f) of the Cooperative Societies Act outstanding loans and dues of members are recoverable as a public demand. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in proceeding in this regard. So far as the authority of the PACS to grant consumer loan is concerned, there is a clear agreement between the petitioner and the Society which indicates that the petitioner had taken loan to which there is no legal bar as such and he had also agreed for repayment with interest at the rate of 21 %. The - 3 - petitioner is only trying to wriggle out his responsibility and cause loss to the Society despite being a bona fide member from where he has drawn advantage. There is nothing to indicate from the ordersheet annexed with the writ application that the objection of the petitioner raised therein under section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act was adjudicated and final order was passed. If the objection of the petitioner was disposed of, the petitioner has remedy of appeal but if the same is not decided and acted upon, then the Certificate Officer is under an obligation to first decide the objection of the petitioner on all those questions including the question of rate of interest which has been charged and the total liability of the petitioner in this regard. Let the matter be dealt with by the Certificate Officer accordingly if the matter has not been disposed of in the meanwhile. This writ application is disposed of with the observation as aforesaid. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)