IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1652 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13838 of 2011 ====================================================== Sanoj Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Bijendra Narayan Singh, R/o Village- Sirsia, P.S.- Barhara Kothi, District- Purnia. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through its Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary cum Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, National Highway Division, Purnia. 5. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Purnia. 6. The Certificate Officer cum Additional Collector, Purnia. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha Mr. Kamal Kishore Jha, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. D.Chowdhary, A.C. to AAG 13. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 21-11-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22nd September 2011 made by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC No. 13838 of 2011 the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at issue is the certificate proceedings initiated against the appellant under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appellant, having submitted to the certificate proceedings Patna High Court LPA No.1652 of 2011 (3) dt.21-11-2011 2 / 3 2 and having lost, has challenged the certificate proceeding on the premise that the demand raised against the appellant is not a ‘public demand’ within the meaning of clause (6) of Section 3 of the Act nor the officer signing the certificate was competent to sign such certificate. The learned single Judge has observed that the certificate proceeding was initiated in 2007. The appellant having submitted to the certificate proceeding by filing objection and having lost has raised the aforesaid issues under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indisputably, the appellant has statutory remedy under Section 60 of the Act. The issue raised in the writ petition can be raised in appeal. The learned single Judge has, therefore, relegated the appellant to the statutory remedy available under the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the objections raised by the appellant go to the root of the matter. The very maintainability of the certificate proceeding and jurisdiction of the certificate officer is questioned. In such case this Court should exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support thereof he has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Whirlpool Corporation V. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others [A.I.R. 1999 SC 22]. We do agree that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the issue under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the appellant did submit to the proceeding under the Act. He has the Patna High Court LPA No.1652 of 2011 (3) dt.21-11-2011 3 / 3 3 alternative remedy of appeal in which all the issues can be raised and answered. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being discretionary, we need not interfere with discretion exercised by the learned single Judge. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)