IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2029 of 2009 PAWAN KUMAR UPADHYAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 10.2.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner has assailed the entire proceedings of the certificate case including the orders dated 11.6.2008 and 13.9.2008, whereby and whereunder the liability of the petitioner for payment of certificate amount has been held and failure on his part to pay the amount as also has also led to consequence of issuance of warrant of arrest against him. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when he had filed an objection under section 9 of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the Certificate Officer was required to apply his mind and pass an order. There can be no quarrel on this proposition of law that an objection under section 9 of the Act has to be disposed of. From the order of the Certificate Officer however it would be clear that when an objection was filed by the petitioner the 2 same was sent for comments of the requisitioning authority as would appear from the order dated 28.8.2002. Subsequently when such comment was received on 12.4.2008 and the petitioner was not appearing a decision was taken for issuance of warrant of arrest against him. The moment warrant of arrest was issued the petitioner appeared on the next day and took a plea that he had deposited certain amount involved under certificate. The petitioner was given opportunity on 22.5.2008 on which day he had produced the original copy for proof of payment of the sum of Rs. 7416.75 paise, whereafter he had sought further opportunity to produce more evidence of payment of the amount. The petitioner, however, on the next day of the proceeding on 5.6.2008 could not produce any further evidence of any payment beyond Rs. 7416.75 paise. The Certificate Officer in such circumstances had directed for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner as for the remaining amount the liability of the petitioner was not disputed. From the order dated 11.6.2008 it would appear that the counsel for the 3 petitioner had conceded before the Certificate Officer that though the vehicle in question was sold by the petitioner in the year 1994 but no information of such sale on account of mistake on the part of the petitioner could be given to the District Transport Officer. In that view of the matter, the Certificate Officer had again passed an order for depositing the balance amount and when the same was not deposited the warrant of arrest was issued by the order dated 13.9.2008. This Court would, therefore, find that each and every plea and defence of the petitioner has already been looked into by the Certificate Officer who had not only given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner but has also passed an order meeting the pleas of the petitioner. Section 9 does not contemplate an order in the form of a judgment. All that section 9 envisages is deciding the objection. The orders dated 22.5.2008, 5.6.2008, 11.6.2008 and 13.9.2008 if read together would definitely create an impression that each and every part of the objection of the petitioner has been 4 adjudicated and decided. That being so, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order or the certificate proceeding. The writ application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to pay the amount within a period of 15 days from today, failing which the Certificate Officer will take coercive steps against the petitioner for realization of the certificate amount. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/