IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2120 of 2007 ANIL KUMAR son of Late Gopal Prasad Agrawal resident of Navinagar, P.s. Navinagar, District Aurangabad. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Subdivisional Certificate Officer, Aurangabad. 3. The state Bank of India, Nabinagvar through its Branch Manager. ----------- 2 01/02/2010 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.12.2006 issued by the Certificate Officer, Aurangabad in Certificate Case No. 6 of 2006-07. Submission of the learned counsel is that a distress warrant has been issued against the petitioner for his arrest even without deciding the objection which he has filed under section 9 of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act. The objection is Annexure-3 to the writ application. Submission of the learned counsel is that the objection was never decided. Certified copy contained in annexure-1 may also indicate that the objection has been ignored and the distress warrant has been issued. Submission is made at the Bar on behalf of the learned counsel representing the Bank. She submits that may be the objection of the petitioner has been decided because there is no clear indication from - 2 - Annexure-1 as the date etc. has been left blank in the certified copy. If the objection had been decided, the details would have been filled in but as an abundant caution the Court can only observe that if the objection under section 9 of the Act stands decided earlier, then the Certificate Officer would be bound to give a copy of the same to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. If it has not been decided, then he has a duty to decide the same before proceeding any further. This writ application stands disposed of with a direction to the Certificate Officer to do the needful as above. Till the order is complied in respect of the so called objection petition under section 9 of the Act, the order dated 14.12.2006 shall remain in abeyance. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)