IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15646 of 2007 SMT.UMA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ********* 2 12.05.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.09.2005/05.12.2005 and the subsequent orders passed thereafter whereby and whereunder the distress warrant has been issued against the petitioner in Certificate Case No. 1485 of 2004-05 arising out of Mining Case No. 02 of 2004-05. Mr. S. B. K. Mangalam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the order of the Certificate Officer dated 24.06.2005/8.09.2005 and 30.09.2005/5.12.2005 on the basis of which he submits that the petitioner had filed an objection upon service of a copy of the certificate on him in terms of Section 9 of the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act, but the same was not decided and yet an order was passed for issuance of distress warrant against him. Mr. Anshuman Singh, J.C. to AAG III however submits that the petitioner, however, by his subsequent conduct by giving his own undertaking to pay the amount of certificate dues in instalments has acquiesced - 2 - himself and, therefore, he can not now question the earlier order of issuance of distress warrant and/or coercive steps. This Court is not impressed with the submission of the learned Counsel for the State for the simple reason that Section 9 of the Act enjoins upon the Certificate Officer to decide the objection of certificate debtor before he chooses to take any coercive step. In that view of the matter, it was not open for the Certificate Officer to keep the objection of the petitioner undecided as has been done by him in the aforementioned order. The very fact that he did not decide the objection and yet proceeded to issue distress warrant goes to show a total immature and infact illegal approach of the District Certificate Officer. Accordingly, this Court would remit the matter back to the District Certificate Officer, Siwan who shall proceed afresh from the stage the petitioner had filed his objection under Section 9 of the Act. The District Certificate Officer is also directed to conduct day-to-day hearing and decide the objection of the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Mr. Mangalam, Counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that as soon as his objection would be decided in accordance with law, the petitioner will deposit - 3 - the certificate amount with up-to-date interest within six months from the date of order passed by the District Certificate Officer, Siwan. In that view of the matter, the order of issuance of distress warrant will remain in abeyance and would not be executed till the expiry of a period of aforesaid six months from the date an order on the said objection is passed. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner will deposit not only the principal amount of certificate dues but also up-to-date interest thereon. On such undertaking of the petitioner, it is also directed that for a period of six months from the date of order on the objection of the petitioner, no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner but the petitioner must make payment of the entire amount found payable by him either in one lump sum or in instalments within the aforementioned period. The District Certificate Officer, Siwan however would be at liberty to take coercive steps including issuance of a distress warrant against the petitioner after expiry of a period of six months in case the certificate dues with up-to-date interest is not deposited by the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Anand ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) - 4 -