IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9811 of 2002 GANESH PRASAD, son of late Janak Sah, resident of village + Post Raghunathpur, P.S. Brahampur, District Buxar, Bihar … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary cum Commissioner, Primary & Adult Education Department, New Secretariat, Patna-1 2. Deputy Development Commissioner, Buxar 3. Block Development Officer, Brahampur, Buxar 4. District Education Superintendent, Buxar 5. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Dumraon, Buxar 6. Circle Officer, Brahampur, Buxar … Respondents. ----------- 3. 24.6.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter contained in memo No. 52 dated 25.1.2002 whereby and whereunder the order has been issued to recover the amount in three installments against the wheat which was rotten down and responsibility has been fixed upon the petitioner. (b) For issuance of writ in nature of certiorari or any other writ(s) thereof quashing the order contained in Annexure 10 whereby and whereunder the respondent has been directed to realize the amount of rotten wheat from the petitioner within one week failing which a certificate proceeding be initiated 2 against the petitioner. (c) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for directing to stay the certificate proceeding under the B & O Public Demand Recovery Act.” The fact which would be necessary to be noticed for disposal of this application lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was admittedly given wheat by the District Administration weighing 347.88 quintals. While it is the case of the petitioner that he did not in any way misappropriate the aforementioned quantity of wheat the Deputy Development Commissioner, Buxar had held the petitioner responsible for spoiling the entire quantity of wheat and also liable to pay the cost of 383.04 quintals of wheat within a period of one week, failing which the certificate proceeding was to be initiated. These orders dated 2.8.2001, 25.1.2002 and 12.2.2002 being Annexures 11, 9 and 10 respectively have been sought to be assailed before this Court by Mr. Shukla only on the ground that it was factually an incorrect assessment of the authority (DDE) that the petitioner was 3 responsible for destruction/ spoiling of the wheat. This Court, however, would find that the enquiry was conducted in the matter by the Sub-divisional Officer, Dumraon, Buxar and all the orders have proceeded on the basis of such enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner or the State also is not aware as to the present status of the impugned orders as with regard to the certificate proceedings, inasmuch as if the petitioner has not paid the amount there was already a direction to lodge certificate proceeding for recovery of the Government dues. In that view of the matter, this Court would find hardly any justification to interfere with the impugned order but then as the petitioner is confident that there are documents to show that the charges against him were absolutely false, the petitioner may still do so by appearing before the Commissioner and assailing the order of the Deputy Development Commissioner of Patna Division who is definitely higher in rank and controlling authority of DDC, 4 the author of the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that if the certificate proceeding has already been lodged the same being governed by the provisions of Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act will not be in any way affected by the order of the Divisional Commissioner and the final decision taken in the certificate proceedings could only be brought to the notice of the Divisional Commissioner for deciding the allegations against the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/