IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.279 of 2007 DURGAPUR TEL UTPADAK SAHYOG SAMITI, BHAWANIPUR P.S. BHAWANIPUR, DISTRICT PURNIA REPRESENTED THROUGH SUSHIL KUMAR YADAV THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SAHYOG SAMITI AT AND P.S. BHAWANIPUR DISTRICT PURNEA. 2. MAHESH LAL CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE SARYUG CHOUDHARY SECRETARY OF THE SAHYOG SAMITI, AT & P.S. BHAWANIPUR, DISTRICT PURNIA 3. SUSHIL KUMAR YADAV SON OF PARMESHWAR YADAV CHAIRMAN OF DURGAPUR TEL UTPADAK SAHYOG SAMITI, AT & P.S. BHAWANIPUR, DISTRICT PURNIA. 4. BHAGWAN PANDIT SON OF LATE KASHI PANDIT, CASHIER OF DURGAPUR TEL UTPADAK SAHYOG SAMITI AT & P.S. BHAWANPUR DISTRICT PURNIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER PURNIA DIVISION, PURNIA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, PURNIA. 4. THE PURNIA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE AT COURT COMPOUND, PURNIA HAVING BRANCH AT BHAWANIPUR WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF PURNIA. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE PURNIA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, PURNIA-CUM-CERTIFICATE OFFICER, PURNIA. 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE PURNIA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, BRANCH AT BHAWANIPUR WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF PURNIA. with CWJC No.1160 of 2007 DURGAPUR TEL UTPADAK SAHYOG SAMITI, BHAWANIPUR. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners :- M/S. Arun Prasad Ambastha & Ravindra Kumar Chaudhary. For the respondent Bank :- Mr. S. N. Pathak - 2 - 6 04/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent Bank as well as learned counsel for the state. From the pleadings and the ordersheet it is not evident that the petitioners have filed any objection under section 9 of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act against the so called demand and the requisition. There are some evasive kind of statement made in this regard, not corroborated by any kind of evidence or material on record. In view of the same the Court is not inclined to interfere with the Certificate proceeding in question at this stage. Let the petitioners appear before the Certificate Officer concerned, file an appropriate objection under section 9 of the said Act which shall be considered and decided by the Certificate Officer before proceeding in the matter. Both these writ applications are dismissed with the observations aforesaid. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)