IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16022 of 2008 ARBIND KUMAR KIRAN, son of late Balmukund Prasad, resident of Mohalla Ram Chandrapur, P.O. Biharsharif, P.S. Laheri, District – Nalanda. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Manager, State Bank of India, Agricultural Development Branch, Biharsharif, District – Nalanda. 3. The Certificate Officer Sri Manoj Kumar, Biharsharif, District – Nalanda. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Devendra Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Ram Prasad Sinha. For State Bank of India : M/S. Satya Prakash Tripathi & Tapeshwar Prasad. For the State : G P 4. ----- 07. 17.02.2010 A Certificate Case No. 130 of 2006-07 was initiated against the petitioner at the instance of respondent no.2. This was for recovery of Rs.1,56,013 which was stated to be due against the petitioner when he failed to repay back the loan granted to him. Though from the order sheet there is a reflection that section 7 notice under the Public Demand Recovery Act was served upon the petitioner but he did not appear till 6.3.2007. The order showing service is dated 4.12.2006/11.1.2007. On 6.3.2007 B.W. & D.W. was issued against the petitioner. On 31.8.2007 there was no valid service report of B.W. & D.W. but on 13.10.2007 learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and filed his objection. Matter was not heard in absence of the Presiding Officer as well as any hearing being carried out on subsequent dates. On 28.7.2008 an order is recorded that since objection has 2 not been filed by the petitioner within the time frame he has to deposit 30 per cent of the amount before objection could be taken up. In the present writ application petitioner is seeking quashing of the issuance of B.W. & D.W. dated 6.3.2007 as well as order dated 28.7.2008 where a condition for deposit of 30 per cent of the certificate amount has been made. The Certificate Officer seems to be either in hurry or does not understand the law and provisions therein. Neither section 7 nor section 9 provides for deposit of 30% of the certificate claim as a condition precedent for hearing on objection. Under what authority such a condition has been imposed in the order dated 28.7.2008 is not known. A series of decisions even otherwise for issuance of B.W. & D.W. are not resorted to a first instance which is a weapon of ultimate use only when there is failure otherwise to procure the attendance of the petitioner and his due cooperation or stated grounds which are not very relevant for the present issue. Looking at the orders which have been passed in the proceeding both the orders being in breech of law are set aside. Direction is given upon the Certificate Officer that he shall first hear the counsel for the petitioner on the objection filed by him under section 9, pass 3 appropriate order and subject to the outcome of such an order the proceeding either may be dropped or proceeded as the case may be. The writ application stands allowed with the above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )