IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1421 of 2006 Rajendra Prasad Mehta @ Mahto @Rajendra Pd. Mahto, son of late Narsingh Mahto, resident of village Amarpur, P.S. Medni Chawki (Suryagarha), District Lakhisarai … Petitioner Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Lakhisarai 3. The District Certificate Officer, Lakhisarai 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Lakhisarai Anchal Lakhisarai, Lakhisarai … Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Parmanand Prasad Narayan Sahi, Advocate For the State : A.C. to A.A.G. 1 ----------- 02/ 03.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (A) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, orders/direction for quashing the following :- (i) the entire Certificate Case No. 462 of 1998- 1999 started on 10.12.1998 on the requisition of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, LakhisaraiAnchal, Lakhisarai, respondent no.4, for realization of Rs.1,78,039.80 paise against the petitioner, Secretary, Bhiraha Amarpur Labour Co- operative Society Ltd. (ii) the order dated 19th November, 2005 passed by the Collector, Lakhisarai in Certificate Appeal No. 1 of 2003-2004 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order contained in Annexure 4 to the petition. (iii) Ex-parte order dated 23.03.1996 passed by Commercial Taxes Officer, Lakhisarai Anchal 2 Lakhisarai, Sales Tax, against the petitioner under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for the period running from 04.02.1985 to 25.12.1989 holding that the Sales Tax to the tune of Rs.1,78,039.80 determining the sales against the petitioner. (B) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order/orders, direction commanding the respondents for the following:- (i) To hold the order contained in Annexures2 and 4 to be nullity and nonest in the eye of law. (ii) Not to give effect to the orders contained in Annexures 2,3,4 and 5 to the petition and . 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that in the sum and substance the petitioner had challenged the certificate proceeding and the order of the Certificate Officer in Appeal No. 01 of 2003- 2004, but the said appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Lakhisarai vide order dated 29.11.2005. 4. It is also quite apparent that the said order of the Collector has been passed under section 60 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity), against which a revision is provided before the Commissioner under section 62 of the Act, but without filing a revision, which was the most appropriate forum as the matter involved questions of facts and law both, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a revision before the said authority raising his all claims, which he has raised here. However, if a revision 3 under the aforesaid provision is filed by the petitioner before the said authority along with all requisites and a copy of this order and an interlocutory application for condoning the delay within 15 days from today, the said authority shall consider the delay caused during the pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the revision expeditiously on its own merits in accordance with law. If the petitioner wants any interim order, he will be at liberty to file an interlocutory application before the revisional authority, who will also decide the same. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)