IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.79 of 2008 SURESH PRASAD YADAV son of late Dip Narayan Yadav, resident of Mohallah-Mirchai Bari, P,O.&P.S.-Katihar, Distt.-Katihar------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Managing Director, The Katihar District Central Co-operative Bank, At & P.O. & P.S.- Katihar, Distt.-Katihar. 3. The Branch Manager, The Katihar District Central Co-operative Bank, At & P.O. & P.S.-Katihar, Distt.-Katihar. 4. The District Co-operative Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, At & P.O. & P.S.- Katihar, District-Katihar--------------------------------------------Respondents. ----------- 6. 29.11.2010 Heard the parties. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.12.2007 passed by a single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. no.8517 of 2003 whereby the certificate proceeding initiated in Certificate Case no.577/1996-97 before the District Co-operative Officer-cum- Certificate Officer, Katihar, was revived and ordered to be continued against the appellant. Stand taken by the appellant is that loan was taken by his son and he was not the responsible person. It is also contended that initiation of second certificate proceeding against him is without jurisdiction. After hearing both sides learned single Judge has held that a letter was issued by the Managing Director of Katihar District Central Co-operative Bank Limited to the effect that on a wrong information the proceeding was initiated against the present appellant and actually it was not the appellant rather appellant’s son had taken the loan. It had been accordingly held 2 by the learned single Judge that the second certificate proceeding is invalid but the first proceeding could well be initiated and continued against the appellant as he was himself the loanee and his clear finding in this regard is as follows :- “ In my view, the writ petition cannot succeed. As the facts unfold, it is clear that he first certificate proceeding was, in fact, validly initiated. There was no mistake in it. On a wrong information given such a letter from the Managing Director was got issued. The mis- representation is writ large in those proceeding wherein strenuous efforts were made to show that it was not the petitioner but petitioner’s son, who had taken the loan. In the counter affidavit documents have been annexed, which clearly show that it was the petitioner who had taken the loan and undertaken to discharge his liability and on failure to do so he permitted the same to be recovered through process of Public Demand Recovery Act. Therefore, it is clear that the first case was withdrawn because of a fraud played. If that be so, the withdrawal of the first case based on fraud is nonest in the eye of law. Even if petitioner’s submission with regard to invalidity of the second proceeding is accepted, it would then make little difference as under law the first case would revive and continue as such. The liability of the petitioner would, thus , continue. Another principle, which would not exempt the petitioner of his liability, would be that this court would refuse to interfere with the second proceeding, if the second proceedings are set aside then wrongly withdrawn proceeding would get validity and thus petitioner would take advantage of such a wrongful withdrawal. It is well settled that wrong order ought not to have been set aside or if the same is set aside then both the orders have to be set aside. In that view of the matter, I hold that the first proceeding would revive and continue as against the petitioner. On second proceeding being held to be invalid.” Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as 3 well as the respondents, we are also of the opinion that the aforesaid letter has been issued on a false representation made by the appellant herein and the fact remains that the appellant himself was a loanee. In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file a representation before the respondents- authority with regard to his grievances. If such a representation is filed, the same shall be disposed of by the respondents as per norms within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. However, it is made clear that respondents will not take any coercive steps against the appellant till the disposal of his representation. Sudip ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )