IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15514 of 2005 Suresh Pd. Mahto, son of Late Janak Lal Mahto, resident of village Pakthaul, P.O. Khidrichak, P.S. Teghra, District Begusarai……………………………………..….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 3. The Certificate Officer, Begusarai. 4. The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Barauni, District Begusarai……………………………………..Respondents. ---------------------------------- 02/ 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No.06 of 1990-91 against the petitioner and also for quashing the certificate in Form-1 issued in the certificate case and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Certificate Case No.06 of 1990-91 was initiated by the Certificate Officer, Begusarai on a certificate filed under section 6 of the Act which was completely erroneous and defective, but on that basis notice under section 7 of the Act was issued to the petitioner vide order dated 08.04.1991 but the said notice was never served upon the petitioner and the petitioner came to know about it only after Warrant of Arrest was issued against - 2 - him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that immediately thereafter he made inquiries and learnt about the case and filed his objection under section 9 of the Act on 23.02.1993. His grievance is that although his aforesaid objection was never decided but Warrant of Arrest was issued against him and he was arrested and spent six months in jail which was the maximum period prescribed under the provisions of law. 4. In that regard, it is apparent from Annexure-4 that Cr.W.J.C. No.187 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 12.04.2005 by which the Certificate Officer was directed to give a copy of the certificate in Form-1 to the petitioner indicating the exact amount which was due against him and if he was ready to pay the amount either at the same time or in equal instalments to be fixed by the concerned authority then he will be released otherwise he will proceed in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said matter is completely different and unconnected with the instant matter in which the objection of the petitioner had to be mandatorily decided by the authorities concerned and without deciding the said objection no such step should have been taken against the petitioner. 6. It is quite strange that although this writ petition had been filed about six years back after serving copies thereof - 3 - in the office of the Advocate General, but no instruction has been received by learned counsel for the respondents who are thus unable to make any specific statement against the claim of the petitioner. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned to decide the objection of the petitioner under section 9 of the Act which he had filed as far back as on 23.02.1993, without any further delay. Until any such decision is taken under section 10 of the Act on the objection of the petitioner, no coercive step shall be taken against him. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)