IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4374 of 2006 Ashok Kumar son of Jagdish Prasad, resident of village Jogiya, P.O. Alama, P.S. Parwalpur, District Nalanda……….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Nalanda. 2. The Additional Collector, Nalanda. 3. The Certificate Officer, Nalanda. 4. The Certificate Officer, Hilsa. 5. Allahabad Bank, a body corporate having its Head office at 2, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkatta and Zonal Office amongst other places at Patna and a Branch Office amongst other places at Milkipar, P.S. Hilsa, District Nalanda……………………...Respondents. 6. Rajendra Prasad 7. Umesh Prasad 8. Chandra Bhushan Prasad sons of Jagdish Prasad. 9. Jagdish Prasad son Lachu Mahto All the residents of village Jogiya, P.O. Alama, P.S. Parwalpur, District Nalanda. 10. Raj Kumar Prasad son of Hari Mahto. 11. Kameshwar Prasad son of Sukhu Mahto Both the residents of village Badra Raj, P.O. Ekangardih, P.S. Ekanger Sarai, District Nalanda……………. Proforma respondents. For the petitioner : Mrs. Sheela Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : None. ---------------------------------- 02/ 22.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 29.12.2005 by which the Additional Collector, Nalanda allowed Appeal No.01 of 1999 filed by the respondent-Bank and set aside order dated 22.12.1998 passed by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No.16 of 1996-97 (05 of 1998-99). 3. The claim of the petitioner was that the said order was passed without hearing the petitioner and without considering the relevant materials and the provisions of law. 4. It transpires that the aforesaid appeal was filed - 2 - 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 under section 62 of the Act. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the revisional authority. If such a revision is filed by the petitioner within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order and an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the revisional authority shall consider the delay caused due to pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the revision on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)