IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3522 of 2006 Binod Kumar Singh son of Baban Singh, resident of village Pahariha, P.S. Bhagwanpur, Distt. Kaimur……………………….…..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Collector, Kaimur. 3. District Mining Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram. 4. District Mining Officer, Kaimur, Bhabhua. 5. District Certificate Officer, Kaimur at Bhabhua. 6. Certificate Officer, Mines, Magadh, Anchal Gaya…….Respondents. For the petitioner : M/s Mahesh Prasad-II and Rewti Kant Suman, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ---------------------------------- 05/ 15.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging requisition no.45 of 1998-99 (Annexure-2) and the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No.17 of 1998-99 initiated against the petitioner for realization of Rs.23,640.00 on the basis of the impugned requisition for realization of alleged dues of the year 1995-96, although there was no dues standing against the petitioner and the claim was hopelessly barred by law of limitation and furthermore the said requisition was subsequently amended, although there was no provision in the law for such amendment in requisition. 3. It is also stated that the first requisition was submitted on 22.08.1998 and on that very date Certificate Officer ordered to register the case and for service of notice under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the - 2 - sake of brevity) and it was directed to be put up on 21.09.1998. It is also claimed that till 18.01.2002 notice was not served upon the petitioner and there was no service report but subsequently on 18.01.2002 another requisition was filed vide letter no.132 dated 01.02.2002 amending the dues and now requisition was submitted for realization of Rs.30,772.00 including the interest and on that date Certificate Officer ordered for issuance of ‘Warning Notice’ but the said notice was not served upon learned counsel for the petitioner till 01.03.2002 and without waiting for the service report the Certificate Officer ordered Kurki Warrant against the petitioner. 4. It transpires that till date Kurki Warrant has not been affected as no further fact has been drawn on the record either by the petitioner or by the respondents although more than five years have lapsed. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an objection before the Certificate Officer raising all the points which he has raised in this writ petition. If such an objection is filed in the aforesaid certificate case within four weeks from today along with a copy of this order, the said authority shall consider the same and decide it by a speaking order expeditiously. 6. Till a final order is passed, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner. However, if any final - 3 - order is passed by the Certificate Officer, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appellate forum provided in the Act. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)