IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.180 of 2008 SHANKAR LAL BAHETI Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Raj Kishore Prasad, Advocate. ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 6th August, 2008. We heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, the senior counsel for the appellant. 2. The Single Judge did not consider the merit of the matter as in his opinion, the objections having been already filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) could be pressed and the Certificate Officer was required to decide the said objections including the issue of maintainability of the certificate. The senior counsel would submit that since the certificate is non est, the Single Judge ought to have considered the matter on merit. He would submit that the law, as per Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 ( for short ‘the Act of 1914’), requires satisfaction to be recorded by the Certificate Officer but in the present case, there is no application of mind and the certificate has been issued against the officer of the company (appellant herein) which is legally unsustainable. The senior counsel - 2 - placed reliance upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Prasad Agrawalla Vs. The State of Bihar and ors. 1976 PLJR 265. He also invited our attention to another decision of this Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of Bihar and ors. (2002 (2) PLJR 553. 3. It needs no emphasis that existence of alternative remedy is never treated as an absolute bar for invocation of high prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, where alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, and such remedy is efficient and capable of giving complete relief to the petitioner, the question has to be addressed whether alternative remedy needs to be by-passed. Each case, obviously, would depend on its facts and circumstances before exercise of discretion or otherwise. In this view of the matter, we need not deal with the two decisions cited by the senior counsel at length. 4. Coming to the facts of the present case, admittedly, the appellant, before approaching this Court, has filed objections to the Certificate Officer way back in the year 2000. The said objections have not been disposed of so far nor any coercive process has been taken against the appellant by the Certificate Officer for implementation of the certificate. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have occasioned to the appellant because of pendency of objections. 5. Section 9 of the Act of 1914 provides for filing of - 3 - petition by certificate objector denying his liability. It 9 reads thus: “9. Filing of petition denying liability, --- (1) The certificate debtor may within thirty days from the service of the notice required by section 7, or where the notice has not been duly served then within thirty days from the execution of any process for enforcing the certificate, present to the Certificate Officer in whose office the certificate is filed or to the Certificate Officer who is executing the certificate, a petition, in the prescribed form, signed and verified in the prescribed manner, denying his liability, in whole or in part (2) If any such petition is presented to a Certificate Officer other than the Certificate Officer in whose office the original certificate is filed, it shall be sent to the latter officer for disposal.” 6. Where the objection/s has/have already been filed by the certificate objector and the same is/are pending consideration before the Certificate Officer and no coercive steps have been taken by the Certificate Officer in implementation of the certificate during the pendency of objections, in our considered view, the objections raised by the appellant to the issuance of certificate denying his liability, have to be determined by the Certificate Officer. As a matter of fact, once the objections have been filed by the appellant denying his liability wherein an issue has also been raised that certificate is legally unsustainable for diverse reasons, it is obligatory on the part of the Certificate Officer to decide the objections raised by the petitioner. 7. We are, thus, satisfied that appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine accordingly. 8. However, we clarify that until the objections filed by - 4 - the petitioners are decided by the Certificate Officer and in case the said objections are rejected, for a period of four weeks therefrom, implementation of the certificate will remain in abeyance. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Anil/