IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4912 of 2006 Ajit Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Rameshwar Pandey, resident of village – Bhatgama, P.S. – Dalsingsarai, District – Samastipur. ……….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Certificate Officer, Samastipur. 3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur. 4. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Samastipur. ………. Respondentss. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : - Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For State Bank of India : - Mr. Alok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate -------------- 04/ 01.12.2011 I.A. No. 7889 of 2011 has been filed by applicant Ajit Kumar Pandey for being substituted in place of petitioner namely, Ramanand Pandey, who is his grand father. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, let the aforesaid applicant be substituted in place of the petitioner as Vakalatnama has been filed on his behalf. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for State Bank of India. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:- (i) For the issuance of direction to the respondent concern to provide details of the Bank account with respect to the loan amount taken by the petitioner for which certificate case No. 370 of 1995-96 has been initiated. (ii) For a direction to the respondent concern to submit details of amount paid by this petitioner 2 towards the payment of principle loan amount. (iii) For a direction to the respondent concern to dispose of the objection petition filed under section 41 of P.D.R. Act as warrant of arrest has been issued by the respondent no. 2 (District Certificate Officer). (iv) For a direction to respondent no. 2 to recall the warrant of arrest issued by him and provide necessary documents in order to facilitate in payment of the loan amount. 3. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it transpires that Certificate Case No. 307 of 1995-96 had been initiated against the original petitioner in which notice under Section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act, 1940 had been issued on 17.11.1995, but thereafter order dated 02.05.2005 was passed by Certificate Officer, Samastipur for attachment and warrant. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner wanted to file objection and for that purpose he requested respondent authorities to provide a statement of accounts which was never provided and such coercive actions were taken against the petitioner. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, with a liberty to the petitioner to approach Certificate Officer, Samastipur by filing an application giving details of his claim and objection. If such an application is filed by the petitioner before the Certificate Officer, Samastipur 3 within 15 days from today the said authority shall consider the same and decide in accordance with law and shall pass order under Section 10 of the Act, if not yet passed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the said order before the authority as provided under the Act. DKS/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)