IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2103 of 2006 Janardan Prasad Yadav, son of Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, resident of village Barwa Parsauni P.O. Pirari, P.S. Inarwa, District West Champaran … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, at Bettiah. 3. The District Certificate Officer, West Champaran at Bettiah 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chanpatia Branch Chanpatia, West Champaran. … Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhileshwar Kumar Srivastava, Advocate For the S.B.I. : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : A.C. to A.A.G. I ---------------------------------- 02/ 15.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs :- (i) For issuance of writ/or writs, in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.12.2005 passed by respondent no.2, in appeal case bearing R.M. no. 7/2000-2001 (contained in Annexure 7) by which respondent no.2 dismissed the said appeal holding that the said appeal is not admissible due to lack of non-depositing of Rs.40% of debt amount whereas the aforesaid appeal was filed against the order dated 25.09.1997 passed in Certificate Case no. 65/93, passed by respondent no.3, whereunder and whereby respondent no. 3 rejected the prayer of petitioner under section 9 of the Bihar &Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act on purely on technical ground of limitation and without determination of actual debt against the petitioner. 2 (ii) For issuance of a writ/or writs, order/orders direction/or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to not take any coercive action against the petitioner in the light of order passed in Certificate Case No. 65/93, till final disposal of objection under section9 of the said Act, filed by the petitioner. (iii) For any relief or reliefs for which the petitioner may be entitled under the law. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that in Certificate Case No. 65 of 1993, a notice under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) was issued and he filed his objection under section 9 of the Act, but neither any evidence was taken nor any determination of liability was made and his objection was rejected by the District Certificate Officer vide order dated 25.09.1997 (Annexure 5) only on the ground that the objection was belated one and there was no material to explain the cause of delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that against the said order he filed an appeal under section 60 of the Act as an appeal was maintainable against any original order made under the Act, but, by the impugned order, the said appeal was rejected only on the ground that the appellant did not deposit an amount equal to 40% of the certificate amount, determined under that section. He also states that against any final order made under the Act, an appeal under section 60 of the Act is maintainable, but from the proviso to that section, it is quite apparent that 40% of the determined amount has to be paid along with the appeal only 3 against such order, which is passed under section 10 of the Act. Hence he stated that in the instant case no order under section 10 of the Act, after hearing finally and determining the liability of the certificate debtor, having been passed, the petitioner was not liable to pay the said amount and rejection of the appeal on that ground is absolutely wrong and unjustified. 5. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that a notice under section 7 of the Act was issued on 01.11.1993 in Certificate Case No. 65 of 1993 by the District Certificate Officer, West Champaran and it was served on the petitioner on 10.11.1993 as is apparent from the records. However, no objection was filed within thirty days of the said notice as required by the said section and an objection under section 9 of the Act was filed after about four years on 31.07.1997. It is apparent from the materials on record as well as from the order dated 25.09.1997 that neither any appropriate cause for delay was mentioned nor any application for condoning the said delay was filed and hence the Certificate Officer was quite justified in rejecting his objection by order dated 25.09.1997. 6. So far other points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it becomes clear from a perusal of the aforesaid order that the said authority had decided and determined the amount to be paid by the petitioner and fixed interest also. This is clearly a determination of the liability of the Certificate Debtor, namely, the petitioner and hence the said order is entirely under the provision of section 10 of the Act and if any appeal is filed against 4 the said order, the appellant has to pay 40% of the amount determined by the impugned order. The petitioner having not paid the said amount, the appellate authority was quite justified in passing the impugned order and dismissing the appeal. 7. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the authorities concerned and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)