IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9205 of 2005 ABHAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF SHRI DEVENDRA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KOARI, P.S. GHITPURA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI.................................................PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE STATE GOVT. CUM EXCISE CMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, BEGUSARAI. 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OFFICER, BEGUSARAI…………………………….RESPONDENTS. with CWJC No.14280 of 2005 RAM PADARATH SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM LAKHAN SINGH, R/O KESAV, P.O. AND P.S. BARAUNI, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI.................................................PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM EXCISE COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, BEGUSARAI. 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OFFICER, BEGUSARAI…………………………….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : M/s Ajit Kumar and Rajneesh, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ----------- 09/ 28.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases. No one appears for the respondents although counter affidavits had been filed on behalf of respondents nos.3 to 5 on 02.09.2005 and 06.01.2006, respectively. 2. Both the cases are being taken up together and are being decided by this common order as points involved in both the cases are exactly the same. The petitioners in both the writ cases have challenged the orders passed by the Certificate Officers in the concerned certificate cases on the grounds that the said authorities did not consider the objections preferred by the petitioners under - 2 - section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) under the direction of this court passed in C.W.J.C. No.10184 of 2003 and C.W.J.C. No.8574 of 2005 and the said authorities passed ex-parte order for realization of money against the petitioners. A prayer has also been made for quashing the entire proceeding of certificate cases and for directing that no excise duty can be recovered for short fall in lifting of minimum guarantee quota of spirit by the retail vendor under the Excise Act. 3. From the impugned orders as well as from the earlier orders passed by a Bench of this court, it is quite apparent that the petitioners had complied the orders of this court and had filed their objections under section 9 of the Act. Although the case numbers had been mentioned, but the objections filed by the petitioners and the points raised by them were not at all considered by the Certificate Officers concerned in the impugned orders. Considering the said facts, a Bench of this court had stayed operation of the impugned orders in these cases vide orders dated 19.09.2005 and 20.12.2005 respectively. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders of the authorities concerned annexed to both the writ petitions are hereby quashed and the authorities concerned are directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of earlier orders of this court mentioned above as well as the objections filed by the petitioners. If applications are filed by the petitioners along with a copy of this order before the authorities - 3 - concerned within 15 days from today, the authorities concerned shall decide the matter as per the above directions/observations expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order. 5. Till then, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)