IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6930 of 2005 SHARVESHWAR NATH SINHA, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR NATH SINHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND P.O. PANCHALAKHI, POLICE STATION-NAUTAN, DISTRICT- SIWAN. ……. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN. 3. CERTIFICATE OFFICER, SIWAN (UNDER PUBLIC DEMAND RECOVERY ACT) 3. EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, SIWAN. ...….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 04/ 12.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the entire certificate proceeding of Certificate Case No.03/94-95 (Excise) as well as the order of issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner dated 05.03.2004 (Annexure-6) passed by the Certificate Officer as well as order dated 29.05.2005 (Annexure-2) by which the Collector of Siwan dismissed petitioner’s appeal no.355 of 2004 for want of jurisdiction. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner had licence no.47/93-94 from the Excise Superintendent for running a country made liquor shop at Panchalakhi under Nautan Police Station within Siwan District. However, on the ground of non-payment requisition for certificate was made under Section 5 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) and ultimately a notice under Section 7 of the Act was sent to the petitioner as certificate debtor. It is also stated that thereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 - 2 - of the Act denying his liability and as claimed by the petitioner the said petition was rejected by the Certificate Officer under Section 10 of the Act and warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the said order he filed Appeal No.355 of 2004 before the Collector under Section 60 of the Act and ultimately the said appeal was dismissed by the Collector on 29.03.2005 for want of jurisdiction. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the materials on record it is quite apparent that appeal under Section 60 of the Act is provided before the Collector of the district against any original order made under the Act. The Collector in his impugned order has not given the detail of jurisdiction which was lacking. He has also not stated as to whether the said appeal was filed against the original order or any other order or there was any other infirmity. He has merely dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction although Section 60 of the Act specifically provides that such appeal would lie before the Collector. 6. In the said circumstances, the impugned order of the Collector dated 29.03.2005 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to him to consider the matter and decide afresh by a reasoned order and if he does not find the jurisdiction to decide the appeal he must clearly specify those reasons in his order. 7. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)