IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17141 of 2008 HRIDAYANAND SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 8.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. There is categorical finding recorded by the First Additional District Judge, Patna, acting as a Tribunal that the petitioner is the owner of the Bus in question and he has been saddled with a liability by way of compensation to the claimants to the extent of Rs.2,17,500/-.But this payment was never made by the petitioner to the claimants and a Certificate case was initiated against him. The petitioner is now challenging the order as contained in Annexure-1 of the Claims Tribunal as well as the proceeding initiated under the Public Demand Recovery Act on the ground that he is not the owner of the Bus and he has brought some Xerox copies of insurance papers to show that he is not the owner of the Bus in question. The writ application is totally mis-placed. If the petitioner was not satisfied with the finding recorded by the First Additional District Judge, Patna, regarding his liability as Bus owner, he should have taken appropriate steps much earlier. It is too late to raise this question here in this writ 2 jurisdiction. This writ application has no merit and is,. accordingly, dismissed. SKBOSE (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)