IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19320 of 2010 ABHAY NANDAN SHUKLA s/o Sakaldeo Prasad Shukla, R/0 Mohalla- Anandpuri, Bibiganj, Bhagwanpur, Police Station-Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur…… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar at Patna. 2. The Certificate Officer, Samaharnalya (Collectorate) Muzaffarpur at Muzaffarpur. 3. The Syndicate Bank, Bhagwanpur Branch, Muzaffarpur through its Branch Manager, P.S. Sadar, District-Muzaffarpur 4. The Regional Zonal Manager, Syndicate Bank at Patna. 5. The Deputy Zonal Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shakeshpear 251 Sarani Calcutta-700017, P.B.No.2043. 6. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Motijheel, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 7. The Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Chankya Commercial Complex, 3rd Floor, Beer Cghand Patel Marg, R-Block, Patna. 8. The General Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, United India House 24, whites Road, Chennai-6000141. … Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar,Advocate For the State: Ms. Juli Kumari,A.C. to S.C.III For Syndicate Bank: Mr. Sanjiv Kumar,Advocate For Insurance Company: Mr.Ashok Priyadarshi,Advocate --------- 2. 25.11.2010 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the Certificate Officer, Muzaffarpur in Certificate Case No.935/2003-04. He also seeks further direction upon the respondent Bank authorities to adjudicate the liability of payment of the petitioner against the loan taken by him and further direction upon the respondent Bank as also the respondent Insurance Company to make available the document with respect to insurance. - 2 - This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. Earlier, he filed C.W.J.C.No.11049/2004 against the order dated 16.8.2004 passed by the Certificate Officer, Muzaffarpur in the same certificate case with respect to the coercive steps taken against the petitioner and by order dated 9.3.2006, the said writ petition was allowed with a direction that the Certificate Officer shall consider the petitioner‘s petition/objection and apply his judicial mind to the contentions raised by him and dispose of the same by a reasoned order without waiting for the proceeds of the Insurance Company even if he concludes that the insurance cover covered the petitioner’s business in question. Thereafter, by a reasoned order dated 21.11.2006, the Certificate Officer, Muzaffarpur has disposed of the certificate case. The writ petition has been filed more than four years after the said disposal of the case by the Certificate Officer. It appears from the materials in the writ petition that the petitioner had also approached the District Consumer Forum in the matter by filing District Forum Case No.167 of 2004 against the respondent Bank as well as the Insurance Company for - 3 - compensation on the ground of deficiency in service but by order dated 29.8.2009, the said case has been dismissed on, among others, the ground as being shockingly barred by limitation of more than four years. Neither the order dated 21.11.2006 of the Certificate Officer nor the order dated 29.8.2009 of the District Consumer Forum has been challenged by the petitioner before any Appellate Authority, though there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable after the petitioner has failed to avail of the alternative statutory remedy within the time provided by the statute or in the mode provided therein. The subject matter of the case itself relates to the year 1998 and thus such stale matter cannot be considered on its merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Any observation made by this Court in this order, however, shall not affect the right of the petitioner to move the appropriate Forum in accordance with law. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )