IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17896 of 2009 NAGENDRA KUMAR MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, and Mr. M. Kumar, Advocates For the SBI: Mr. K.K.Sinha, Advocate ---------- 3 18.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Vide order contained in annexure-3 dated 15.6.2005 the Certificate Officer, Daud Nagar in the district of Aurangabad in Certificate Case No. 19/2003-04 has issued Body warrant and distress warrant against the petitioner for non-payment of so called loan taken under Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yojana from respondent State Bank of India, Daud Nagar. The total loan amount is said to be Rs. 55,000/- sanctioned in the year, 1996. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the ordersheet which has been made available to him it is evident that nothing seems to have been done in the case after its institution, one of them being that the objection filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act has not been decided and all of a sudden warrant of arrest is now being enforced against him. He also stated that his effort to obtain the entire ordersheet of the certificate case has not succeeded and he has brought evidence in this regard on record. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of State Bank of India the primary stand taken therein is - 2 - that the petitioner is a defaulter for loan amount sanctioned to him and in absence of repayment the proceeding has been initiated. There is nothing wrong in the proceeding as such. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to long gap when the proceeding was initiated and the when the so called distress warrant of arrest was issued and in absence of adjudication on the objection filed under section 9 of the Act serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In the totality of the things the Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted with the proceeding as such. The petitioner has made out a case for interference limited to the extent that no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner by the Certificate officer in the case till he decides his objection filed under section 9 of the Act. This writ application stands disposed of with a direction to the Certificate Officer to decide the objection filed by the petitioner in Certificate Case No. 19/2003-04 at an early date and then the consequence will flow thereafter. Before parting learned counsel representing the Bank categorically states that irrespective of the pending the certificate proceeding the petitioner can approach the bank and settle the dues without adjudication of the of the certificate case in question. This is a matter between the petitioner and the Bank and the Court has nothing to do on this issue. It is left open upon the parties to take steps in this regard. - 3 - This writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)