IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20514 of 2010 Ajay Samajhdar, son of Sri Sandeep Kumar Das, resident of Village- Q.No.-513 “B” Road No.1, Gandhi Park, Railway Colony, P.O.- Samastipur, P.S.-Samastipur, District-Samastipur. …….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Bank of India Main Branch, Samastipur through its Branch Manager. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Samastipur. 3. The District Certificate Officer, Samastipur. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna. ……..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate. For respondent nos.1 & 2 : M/s. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha & Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocates. For respondent No.4 : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Advocate. ------------ 07/ 06.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents- State Bank of India and its authority. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the certificate notice dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure-6) and subsequent order dated 10.05.2010 under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa public Demand Recovery Act, 1974 issued by the District Certificate Officer, Samastipur by which the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.1,32,646.00 in view of requisition dated 08.08.2007 sent by the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Samastipur and also for directing the Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna to lodge F.I.R. against the erring authorities of the Bank who have victimized the petitioner and restraining the respondents from disturbing the petitioner. - 2 - 3. It is specifically stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that after receiving notice under Section 7 of the Act he had filed his objection denying his liability under the provision of Section 9 of the Act on 26.10.2007 (Annexure-7), but no order till date has been passed on the said objection which is lying pending and in the meantime coercive actions are being taken against the petitioner. 4. Without going into the merit of the case, it, prima facie, appears that the objection, as per the provision of the Statute, having been filed by the petitioner, the concerned authority was duty bound to decide the same within a reasonable time and till then no coercive action should have been taken by the authorities against the petitioner with respect to his alleged liability. 5. Hence this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Certificate Officer, Samastipur (respondent no.3) to decide the said objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act, if not yet disposed of, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner must produce a copy of this order before the District Certificate Officer, Samastipur (respondent no.3) as well as the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Samastipur (respondent no.2) within seven days. 6. During the pendency of the aforesaid objection, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. However, if the said objection of the petitioner under section 9 of the Act has - 3 - already been disposed of, the said authority shall proceed in accordance with law without being affected by this order. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)