IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11087 of 2005 Devendra Kumar Poddar S/o Late Indra Narayan Poddar, resident of Budha Nath Road, Khalipha Bagh Chowk, P.S.-Kotwali, Bhagalpur. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Bhagalpur. 3. The Certificate Officer, Bhagalpur. 4. The Administrator, Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation Bhagalpur. …. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Sanjay Kumar & Rajeshwar Singh, Advocates. For respondent no.4 : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate. ------------ 04/ 01.08.2011 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 11.04.2005 (Annexure-5) by which the learned Collector, Bhagalpur (respondent no.2) allowed Certificate Appeal No.29/2004-05 filed by the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation (respondent no.4) and set aside order of the Certificate Officer, Bhagalpur (respondent no.3) dated 31.03.2004 (Annexure- 3) dropping Certificate Case No.55 of 2000-01. 3. It is not in dispute that Certificate Case No.55 of 2000-01 was initiated against Indra Narayan Poddar by the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation claiming recovery of municipal dues against him. It is also not in dispute that the said Indra Narayan Poddar had died prior to the initiation of the aforesaid proceeding which was also belated and hence Certificate Officer vide his order dated 31.03.2004 (Annexure-3) dropped the said Certificate Case No.55 of 2000-01 on the grounds of limitation as - 2 - well as being against a dead person. 4. Against the aforesaid order of the Certificate Officer, the Corporation filed Certificate Appeal No.29 of 2004-05 and in the said appeal only the decased Indra Narayan Poddar was impleaded and no notice was sent to his heir, namely the petitioner and the said appeal was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 11.04.2005 and the matter was remanded to the Certificate Officer on the assumption that the demand was made against the property with respect to holding tax and the holding continues in possession of the heirs of the person concerned who can be substituted in the certificate case. 5. From the orders of the authorities concerned, it is quite apparent that the certificate officer dropped the certificate proceeding on two grounds, the first ground was a limitation due to delay in the filing of the certificate case and the second ground was that the certificate case was initiated against the person who had died prior to the filing of the certificate case. 6. So far the first ground is concerned, the appellate authority is absolutely silent in that regard, hence if the other issue decided by the certificate officer is set aside, on the issue of limitation, the certificate proceeding cannot be legally revived. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the Collector in his impugned order dated 11.04.2005. 7. So far the second question is concerned, there is no question of any substitution against the person against whom proceeding had been initiated had died much before the initiation - 3 - of the certificate proceeding and the question of substitution arises only when the person dies during the pendency of the proceeding. Here, there was no such situation. Furthermore, the proceeding of the certificate case continued and inspite of having knowledge of the death of the deceased Indra Narayan Poddar, the Corporation did not take any step before the Certificate Officer for correction of that mistake. In appeal filed by the Corporation also deceased Indra Narayan Poddar was impleaded as the sole respondent. This act of the respondent nullified the filing of the appeal itself. 8. Without considering the said facts and circumstances of the case and the law of limitation and without giving any notice to the heirs of the said Indra Narayan Poddar, the Collector had no authority at all to proceed with the appeal which was ab initio illegal and void. Hence, any order passed therein by the Collector cannot be sustained in law. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order of the Collector dated 11.04.2005 (Annexure- 5) is hereby quashed and the order of the Certificate Officer dated 31.03.2004 (Annexure-3) is hereby affirmed. However, the Corporation, if advised, may initiate certificate proceeding against the petitioner, if permitted in law, which, if filed, will be decided in accordance with law on its own merit by the appropriate authority. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)