WP(C) 5772/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY The petitioner, by this petition, has challenged the proceedings in Bakijai Case ~ No.23/05-06/PF, No.36/05-06/PF and 03/08-09/DL ~ and the order dated 26th Aug ust 2010 issued by Certificate Officer, Cachar, Silchar in said proceedings issu ing notice under Section 7 of Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act 1913(in short, t he Act), and also the order dated 15th September 2010 whereby and where under a warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against the petitioner for non payme nt of dues to the tune of rupees thirty-four lakh fifty thousand and one hundred sixty-eight. Ground of challenge is that the petitioner being in no way connect ed with the affairs of M/s Bhuban Valley Tea Estate in respect of which the prov ident fund amount was due and payable, initiation of such proceeding against the petitioner is illegal. It is also the contention of petitioner that in any case the provident fund dues being recoverable as arrear of land revenue under provi sions of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 only, no proceeding can be initi ated under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act 1913(in short the Act). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Stat e counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 5. Also, heard learned counsel for the other respondents. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sin ce petitioner is in no way connected with the affairs of M/s Bhuban Valley Tea E state, Certificate Officer ought not to have issued notice under Section 7 of th e Act asking him along with others to pay the sum of rupees thirty-four lakh fif ty thousand and one hundred sixty-eight, and consequently ought not to have issu ed warrant of arrest. It has also been submitted by learned counsel that since t he dues payable on account of the provident fund is recoverable as arrear of lan d revenue, it can be recovered by following procedures laid out in Assam Land & Revenue Regulation 1886, and not by following the procedures laid down in the Ac t. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that Bakijai proceeding initiated by the Certificate Officer, Cachar, Silchar, needs to be quashed. It has also been subm itted that though the petitioner on receipt of the notice filed petition under S ection 9 of the Act denying his liability, the same has not been disposed of til l date. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the Certificate Officer, by the order dated 26th August 2010, had issued the notice under the pr ovisions of the Act asking the petitioner to show cause, and since petitioner ha s filed the objection against that under Section 9 of the Act, the same shall de finitely be decided by the Certificate Officer as required under Section 10 of t he Act. It appears that the Certificate Officer has issued the notice under Sect ion 7 of the Act. Section 9 provides for filing of the petition denying the liab ility by the noticee. Section 10 requires hearing and determination of such a pe tition filed by the noticee. Since the ground of challenge by the petitioner tha t he is in no way connected with M/s Bhuban Valley Tea Estate is a disputed ques tion of fact, such dispute can be conveniently resolved by Certificate Officer u nder Section 10 of the Act. It also appears that the petition filed by the petit ioner under Section 9 of the Act has not been decided by the Certificate Officer till date. That being the position, this petition is disposed of directing the Cert ificate Officer, Silchar, to decide the petition filed under Section 9 of the Ac t, as required under Section 10 of the Act, by a speaking order by 30th May 201 1. Till that date, that is the 30th May 2011, the warrant of arrest issued again st the petitioner shall not be executed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.