IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7306 of 2006 Narayan Gupta, son of Late Nathuni Sah, resident of Mohalla-Naya Tola, Kalambagh Chowk, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Co-Operative Land Development Bank Ltd., through its Managing Director, Budh Marg, Patna. 2. The Managing Director, the Bihar State Co-Operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Budh Marg, Patna. 3. The Branch Manager, the Bihar State Co-Operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Certificate Officer-cum-District Manager, the Bihar State Co-Operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Muzaffarur. ….Respondents. ----------------- For the petitioner : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ramadhar Tiwari, Advocate. ------- 03/ 19.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire certificate proceeding bearing Certificate Case No.10487 of 1998-1999, which is pending before the District Manager-cum-Certificate Officer, Land Development Bank, Muzaffarpur, because more than the demand raised by the Certificate Officer, has been paid by the petitioner. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with assets and liberty of the petitioner, on the garb of pendency of the Certificate Case No. 10487 of 1998-99 and further a direction to not torture the petitioner. (iii) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, - 2 - order/orders, direction/directions of which the writ petitioner shall be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. It is claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the said proceeding notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) was issued by the authorities against the petitioner, whereafter the petitioner had made certain payments, but in spite of that petitioner is being harassed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has made wrong statements as the amount claimed to have been paid by the petitioner has not been made, rather a meager amount of Rs.20,800.00 has been deposited by the petitioner in the Bank. 5. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had made some payments and had never challenged the said notice for about several years although he should have challenged the proceeding immediately thereafter without wasting the time making irrelevant efforts, hence filing of this writ petition after so many years of receiving the notice does not inspire any confidence in the excuses made by the petitioner in that regard. 6. However, in any view of the matter, since the petitioner had made certain payments a chance is given to him to approach the authority concerned according to the provisions of law as the Certificate Case No.10487 of 1998-99 is claimed to be still - 3 - pending. If an application is filed by the petitioner as per the provision of the Act before the appropriate authority within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order, the said authority shall consider the same, including the amount payable and the amount paid by the petitioner and shall decide the same by a speaking order within three months thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Sunil ( S. N. Hussain, J.)