IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1480 of 2006 Shambhu Prasad Singh @ Shambhu Prasad son of Jaglal Prasad of village Bharpura, P.S. Sonepur, District-Saran………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Minerals, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Mines Officer, Saran at Chapra. 3. The Assistant District Mines Officer, Saran at Chapra. 4. The District Collector, Saran at Chapra. 5. The District Certificate Officer, Saran at Chapra………………………………………………..Respondents. For the petitioner :M/s Bal Mukund Pd. Sinha and Pratik Kr. Sinha, Advocates. For the respondents :Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, AC to AAG-13. ---------------------------------- 03/ 14.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) To issue to respondents direction/directions, order/orders or writ/writs directing them to quash and set aside entire certificate proceeding including the orders passed in Mining Certificate Revision No.09 of 2005 dated 04.10.2005 by the District Collector, Saran at Chapra as a Revisional authority, respondent no.4 contained in Annexure-5, in Mining Certificate Case No.528 of 2004-05 dated 08.09.2005 by the District Certificate Officer, Saran at Chapra contained in Annexure-3, respondent no.5 and notice dated 06.11.2004 issued under the authority of the District Certificate Officer Saran at Chapra, respondent no.5 to the petitioner in Mining Certificate Case No.528 of 2004-05 fixing 27.06.2005 for a payment of the certificate amount in issue or other wise to show-cause why a process for arrest warrant be not issued against him contained in Annexure-2 as also orders dated 25.11.1986 passed in Mining Certificate Case No.528 of 2004-05 inadvertently mentioned in place of Case No.116 of 1984-85 by the District Certificate Officer, Saran at Chapra - 2 - (respondent no.5) including order dated 31.05.1988 at Annexure-1 rejecting his objection petition denying his entire liability paying the certificate amount with an interest in issue. (ii) To issue or pass any other appropriate direction or directions order or orders or writ or writs to the respondents to which the petitioner is entitled to get such benefit/benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was necessarily required according to the provisions of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) but no such notice was given to the petitioner and the service claimed was not according to the provisions of law and there was no acknowledgement. He also argues that the certificate was required to be annexed with the notice as per the provisions of law but that was also not annexed and hence the principle of natural justice having been violated, the impugned order of the Certificate Officer is void ab-initio and hence all the orders subsequent thereto on its basis also become illegal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the Certificate Officer had decided the matter earlier but he again decided the same which attracted the provision of res-judicata. It is further averred that at the subsequent stage the petitioner sought adjournment which was not granted and the order was passed by the authorities without hearing the petitioner which is also against the provisions of law. With respect to the absence of service of notice the - 3 - petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack Sales Co-op. Society Ltd. etc. vs. Secretary (Food and Agriculture) Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others etc., reported in A.I.R. 1977 SC 2313. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Initially Certificate Case No.116 of 1984-85 was started against the petitioner in which notice under section 7 of the Act was issued on 14.08.1984 and 20.09.1985, whereafter the petitioner filed an application before the Certificate Officer requesting grant of time and for fixing another date for filing an objection on the ground that his area was flooded, but when no objection was filed by the petitioner the Certificate Officer passed his impugned order dated 25.11.1986. The petitioner himself in pargraph-6 of his writ petition has admitted that he was present in court on 20.09.1985, 19.03.1986, 14.05.1986 and 03.09.1986, but in spite of that and in spite of adjournment granted for filing his objection no objection was filed under section 9 of the Act. In the said circumstances, the Certificate Officer was quite justified in passing his order dated 25.11.1986. 6. So far the question of service of notice is concerned, notice in a case specially a certificate case is issued for giving information to the person against whom the proceeding has been initiated and when such person himself - 4 - appears in court and seeks adjournment for filing objection, the purposes of notice is complete. Furthermore, no such objection having been raised by the petitioner before the said authority either for notice or for the certificate, the said point raised by him is not sustainable in law, specially when the aforesaid case law in case of Chintapalli Agency Taluk ArrackSales Co- op. Society Ltd. etc. (supra) is completely different on facts. 7. It further transpires that later on 19.07.1988 the petitioner filed an objection under section 9 of the Act which was rejected. Subsequently the matter was transferred to the District Certificate Officer where it was re-numbered as Certificate Case No.528 of 2004-05 and in that case order dated 08.09.2005 for issuance of warrant was issued. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector vide Certificate Revision No.09 of 2005 which was also dismissed on 04.10.2005. 8. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that when the objection of the petitioner under section 9 of the Act was rejected by the authority under section 10 of the Act, no appeal was filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Act although he had appeared in the certificate proceeding. Hence, the aforesaid order under section 10 of the Act had become final and subsequent orders passed by the subsequent Certificate Officer were in continuance of the said order and they cannot be said to have attracted any provision of res-judicata specially when the said orders were - 5 - only with respect to follow up action regarding earlier order for recovery of principal amount with interest. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are absolutely frivolous and misconceived and this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)