WP(C) 2356/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr . A. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the ASCARD Bank representing the respon dents 1 & 2. Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Government Advocate appears for respondents 3, 4 & 5. 2. The petitioner challenges the proceedings in Bakijai Case No. B-1/2003 p ending before the Bakijai Officer of Cooperative Societies, Guwahati, wherein re covery proceeding on the basis of a Certificate for an amount of Rs.4,31,250.70 has been initiated under the provisions of Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel submits that the petitioner after having taken a loan of Rs.2,49,000/- from the Assam State Cooperative Agriculture and R ural Development Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ASCARD Bank) on 15.3. 1996 had repaid a substantial amount of the loan when the ASCARD bank authoritie s refused to receive any further repayment from the petitioner on the ground tha t a Bakijai Case has been registered under the Act against the petitioner for re covery of the balance dues on the loan. 4. The learned counsel refers to the communication dated 28.6.2001 of the B akijai officer to show that even on that date, information was furnished that no Bakijai case has been registered against the petitioner. On receiving this info rmation even after 28.6.2001 the petitioner made some further payment(s) and req uisite receipts showing such re-payments are annexed as Annexure-5 series. 5. The chief grievances of the petitioner is that in the certificate under Section 6 of the Act, the re-payment(s) already made have not been taken into ac count by the respondents and therefore the Bakijai proceeding is contended to be vitiated in law. 6. But under the Act, even after a notice under Section 7 of the Act, the n oticee has the option of denying the liability either partially or wholly under Section 9 of the Act and only after considering the noticee’s objection, a deci sion is to be taken as to whether the certificate debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount for which the certificate was signed and modification of the certificate is to be made accordingly. 7. Having regard to the provisions incorporated under Section 9 of the Act, I am of the considered opinion that merely because some re-payments were not t aken into account at the time of issuance of the certificate under Section 6 of the Act, the impugned proceeding doesn’t get vitiated particularly when some du es are clearly admitted by the petitioner, in respect of the car loan obtained b y him from the ASCARD bank. 8. In the above circumstances, since the petitioner has his remedies under the Act in respect of the impugned proceeding particularly with regard to the am ount mentioned in the certificate, the petitioner ought to be relegated to proje ct his stand in Bakijai case. 9. Accordingly this case stands disposed of by directing the respondents to deal with the petitioner’s contentions in the Bakijai case having due regard to the provisions of Section 9 and 10 of the Act. 10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.