IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14256 of 2005 Jafar Alam son of Nazimudding, resident of Gaya Road Nawadah, P.O.+P.S.+District-Nawadah. .........Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Nawadah. 3. The District Certificate Officer, Nawadah. 4. The Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Limited through its Divisional Manager, Gaya. 5. The Divisional Manager, Miner Forest Produce Project Gaya Division Gaya. 6. Range Officer, Rajauli Range Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, Rajauli, Nawadah. ........Respondents ---------------------------------- 08 29.09.2011 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) That the requisition filed by the respondent corporation in Case No. 03/2002- 03 contained in Annexure-1 be quashed. (II) That the entire proceeding in Certificate Case No. 03/2002-03 contained in Annexure- 4 be quashed. (III) That any other relief or reliefs may be allowed which may be just proper and equitable in the opinion of this Hon’ble Court. 3. The claim of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said certificate proceeding had been initiated without payment of court fees by the respondents and hence under the provisions of section 5 (2) of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the shake of brevity), the said proceeding was ab initio void and the steps in that regard by the - 2 - Certificate Officer was absolutely illegal. In this connection he relies upon two decisions of this Court in case of Sheela Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1994 (2) P.L.J.R. 617 as well as an unreported decision passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9074 of 2006. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the Government circular, the respondent-corporation and the Department were not to deposit court fees as per section 5 (2) of the Act. 5. From the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that Certificate Case No. 03 of 2002-03 was initiated on 09.07.2002 whereafter notice under section 7 of the Act was sent to the petitioner on 27.08.2002 after receiving which he appeared in the case on 23.10.2002 and much thereafter filed an objection under section 9 of the Act on 31.05.2005, which was dismissed on the same day being barred by limitation. Only thereafter this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 21.11.2005. 6. If the petitioner was of the view that the proceeding of the certificate case was ab initio void, he should have, immediately after notice under section 7 of the Act dated 27.08.2002, approached this Court for quashing the entire proceeding in stead-of appearing in the certificate case himself on 23.10.2002. It further transpires that for about three years from the date of his appearance in the certificate case, he did not take any step in that regard and file an objection under section 9 of the Act, which being time barred was dismissed by the Certificate Officer. In those circumstances, when the petitioner had - 3 - himself chosen the procedure under the provision of the Act, the petitioner should have filed an appeal as provided under the Act, but in stead he has come to this Court. 7. In the said circumstances, the facts of this case is completely different from the facts of the aforesaid two decisions of Benches of this Court mentioned above. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that the petitioner had been delaying the matter from the very beginning on one pretext or the other and although, notice under section 7 of the Act had been served upon him and he had appeared in the certificate case, but in the first paragraph of his writ petition he has stated that notice under section 7 of the Act was not served upon him and distress warrant was issued. It is completely against the fact as is apparent from the order-sheets of the certificate case, which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-4. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Safik (S.N.Hussain, J.)