IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3484 of 2006 Md.Ibrahim, son of Sakoor Mian, resident of village Chhardawali, P.S. Gopalpur, District West Champaran. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, at Bettiah 3. The District Co-operative Officer, West Champaran, at Bettiah. 4. The Managing Director-cum-Certificate Officer, National Central Co- operative Bank, West Champaran at Bettiah. 5. The Branch Manager, National Central Co-operative Bank, Lal Bazar Bettiah, West Champaran 6. Mr. Bishwanath Pandey, son of Shyama Pandey, resident of village Jabdaul, P.S. Chanpatia, District West Champaran, at present posted as Paid Manager, Bakulahar PAX, Circle Chanpatia, West Champaran (appointed by Co-operative Department). 7. The Officer-in-charge of Gopalpur Police Station, West Champaran. … Respondents --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhileshwar Kr. Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondents no.4&5: Mr. P. K. Verma, Advocate -------- 05/ 23.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities as well as learned counsel for respondent-National Central Co-operative Bank and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in connection with Certificate Case No. 170 of 2004 pending before the Certificate Officer-cum-Managing Director, National Central Co-operative Bank, Bettiah (hereinafter referred to as `the Bank’ for the sake of brevity) without compliance of the provisions of sections 7 and 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and - 2 - learned counsel for both sets of respondents, it is quite apparent that the notice under section 7 of the Act was issued by the Certificate Officer on 08.06.2004 (Annexure C/1) but neither any receipt of the service of the said notice has been filed nor the petitioner admits any service or information about the said notice. 4. In the said circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of filing an objection under section 9 of the Act and warrant of arrest was issued against him, which forced the petitioner to file this writ petition. However, it is an admitted fact that after the said order till date the petitioner has not been arrested and the proceeding is still continuing. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an objection under section 9 of the Act before the Certificate Officer within four weeks from today along with a copy of this order and other requisites. If such an application is filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid time, no coercive step shall be taken against him till the disposal of the said application by the authorities concerned under section 10 of the Act. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed under section 10 of the Act, he will have the liberty of challenging the same before the appellate authority provided under the Act. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)