IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5394 of 2007 MUNNA PRASAD @ VIJAY KUMAR, S/O Sri Harihar Prasad, resident of Village- Jirwakhand, P.S. Hilsa, District-Nalanda................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Certificate Officer, Nalanda. 3. Assistant Mining Officer,Nalanda......................................Respondents. ----------- 2. 16.02.2010. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the respondents. Besides other challenge which has been thrown against the proceeding initiated in the Certificate Case No. 230 of 2006-07, a major legal objection is that there was no valid service of notice under Section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act and that the requisitions which have been brought on record as Annexure-C is neither dated nor signed nor verified. This Court is not willing to certify whether there was valid service of notice or not because the order sheet does indicate that the notice was validly served on the petitioner. But the other aspect about the certificate not being signed, dated or verified stands corroborated by Annexure-C which is now part of record and has been annexed with the counter-affidavit. The infirmity pointed out by the learned senior counsel goes to the root of the matter. The law is well settled in this regard that a unverified, unsigned or undated certificate is no certificate in the eye of law and no proceeding can be maintained on the same. The petitioner has made out a case for indulgence and interference, the proceeding is quashed but if the respondents can 2 still maintain the case they have remedy to correct the infirmity in the certificate and file a fresh one in accordance with law. This writ petition is allowed. U.K. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J)