IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3168 of 2003 SUDAMA SINGH, SON OF SHRI RAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MARICHAON, P.S. BHABUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR (BHABUA).…….PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CERTIFICATE OFFICER, BHABUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR 3. THE CHAIRMAN, BHOJPUR-ROHTAS GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE – ARRAH, DISTRICT BHOJPUR (BIHAR). 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, BHOJPUR-ROHTAS GRAMIN BANK, BRANCH-BARE, P.S. BHABUA, DISTRICT KAIMUR. ……….…RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate. For the respondents : AC to AAG-2 ----------- 05 07.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the proceeding bearing Certificate Case No.1(B) of 2001- 02, including order dated 17.01.2003 by which Warrant of Arrest has been issued against the petitioner without disposing of the objection filed under section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. On 04.04.2003 an interim order was passed by this court that till further orders execution of the Warrant of Arrest issued against the petitioner in Certificate Case No.1(B) of 2001-02 pending before the Certificate Officer, Bhabua (Kaimur) would remain stayed. Till today it has remained stayed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 in paragraph-6 of which it is stated that the objection - 2 - under section 9 of the Act was filed by the petitioner in the aforesaid certificate case and on 17.01.2003 the Certificate Officer noted ‘rejection’ on the application itself, but did not pass any order in the order sheet. In paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit the respondent has stated that the objection filed under section 9 of the Act could not be disposed of as the petitioner or his learned lawyer never appeared to press it. 5. In the said circumstances, the stands taken by the respondent are contradictory. Furthermore, mere noting on the application ‘rejected’ cannot be held to be valid rejection of objection under section 9 of the Act, as it has to be decided after hearing both the parties and passing an order in the order sheet so that if the aggrieved person wants he can challenge it before the higher authority. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Certificate Officer, Bhabua (Kaimur) to decide the objection filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Act by a reasoned order after hearing both the parties in accordance with law on its own merit without being influenced by this order. 7. Till the said objection is decided by the said authority, the Warrant of Arrest issued against the petitioner in the aforesaid certificate case shall remain stayed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)