IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5923 of 2011 BHOLA NATH PANDEY, SON OF LATE BARMESHWAR NATH PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST CHURAMANPUR, P.S.- BUXAR(IND.) DISTRICT-BUXAR. ……PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DISTTRICT CERTIFICATE OFFICER, BUXAR. 3. BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, BUXAR BRNACH BUXAR DISTRICT-BUXAR. …..RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. B.J.Ojha, Advocate. For the Bank of India : Mr. Alok K. Choudhary, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rani Kumari @ Rani Singh, Advocate, A.C. to G.A.-2. ----------- 03. 19.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 15.02.2011(Annexure-5) by which the Certificate Officer Buxar(respondent no.2) rejected the objection of the petitioner filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) on the point of limitation and issued Distress Warrant against the petitioner and also for direction to the said Certificate Officer to dispose of the objection filed by the petitioner on merit and not on technical ground. 3. Admittedly objection was filed by the petitioner on 07.03.2007 (Annexure-2) before the District Certificate Officer which was belated by about a month and no application for condoning the delay had been filed by the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the said objection was rejected by the District Certificate Officer as time 2 barred by his impugned order dated 15.02.2011 whereafter Distress Warrant was directed to be issued against the petitioner. 4. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the said order in view of a decision of this Court in case of Yugal Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2008(3) P.L.J.R. 656 but in that case the matter was different as Distress Warrant had been issued before passing any order under Section 10 of the Act. Furthermore, when a period of limitation is prescribed the authority considering the objection has to first see whether the objection is barred by limitation or any other law and only when it is not barred by limitation or any other law, the merit of the claim can be considered. But when a case is barred by law of limitation it has to be dismissed before considering the merit thereof. 5. In any view of the matter against the impugned order under section 10 of the Act the petitioner had an adequate, efficacious and proper remedy of appeal provided under the provisions of the Act. But it transpires that even the said remedy has not been utilized by the petitioner and this writ petition has been filed on 31.03.2011. 6. This Court has been observing that avoiding specific provisions of law with respect to appeals such defaulters have been invariably filing writ cases and are coming directly to this Court, which has to be deprecated as in most cases pure questions of fact are involved requiring evidence, which can be properly decided only in appeals and hence the burden of this Court is unnecessarily being enhanced. 3 7. In the said circumstances, this writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. Devendra/ ( S.N. Hussain, J.)