IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.55 of 2011 Suman Kumar Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 4 27-6-2011 Heard the parties. From the discussions made in the order impugned before the writ court dated 23-6-20110 it appears that a categorical issue was raised before the District Co-operative Officer-Cum- Certificate Officer, Bhagalpur in Certificate Case No.7 of 2010 that the petitioner, who also happens to be the Chairman of Bora Pathak Primary Agricultural Co- operative Society (PACS), was personally not liable for the certificate amount which was a loan availed by the PACS from Bhagalpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Repelling that stand of the writ petitioner/appellant, the Certificate Officer held that since the petitioner had acted on behalf of PACS as Chairman and because lands belonging to the writ petitioner had been offered by way of security through mortgage, the petitioner was personally liable to repay the loan. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the writ court should not have relegated the appellant to 2 avail forum of appeal available under the relevant Act because the issue raised was an issue of law relating to jurisdiction of the Certificate officer to proceed against the appellant in his personal capacity. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Faizan Vrs. State of Bihar, 1997(1) PLJR 1028 and in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Vrs. State of Bihar, 2002(2) PLJR 553. It has been submitted that in both the aforesaid judgments the law has been clearly laid down that although the proceeding for recovery of loan from a Co- Operative Society, which is juristic person, has to proceed through some official of the Society but the liability remains that of the Society; the Chairman of the Society cannot be held personally liable to repay the loan of the Society in a Certificate Proceeding. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that since all the steps for obtaining loan were taken by the appellant and he has furnished his own land by way of security through mortgage, no interference should be made with the impugned order passed by the Certificate Officer fixing responsibility upon the appellant to repay the 3 loan. The law noticed above and relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has to be accepted as correct. No different view has been taken by this Court in any other judgment. We accept the contention advanced on behalf of appellant and accordingly set aside the order under appeal. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Certificate officer, Bhagalpur to proceed afresh by treating the liability of repaying the loan to be that of PACS which is only represented by the Chairman. The earlier reply submitted by the appellant to the notice under section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act shows that it was a reply submitted by him as Chairman of the PACS. In that capacity, while objecting to correctness of the calculation of certificate amount he undertook to repay the demand after necessary correction/verification. That reply shall be treated as reply on behalf of PACS represented through the appellant. Thereafter further steps may be taken by the Certificate Officer against the PACS for recovery of the certificate amount. It goes without saying that if the PACS does not deposit the 4 certificate amount as per order of the Certificate officer then steps may be taken for recovery of the loan amount by proceeding against the security furnished for obtaining the loan. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Vijayendra Nath,J)