IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4952 of 2005 M/S SENBO ENGINEERING LIMITED, THROUGH SRI C.S. CHOUDHARY, DIRECTOR FINANCE, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 87, LENIN SARANI, P.S. TALTALA, KOLKATA- 700013……………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM CERTIFICATE OFFICER, SADAR, MADHUBANI. 4. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA. 5. THE LABOUR INSPECTOR CUM LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, MADHUBANI. 6. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, KHAJAULI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT MADHUBANI……RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. K.D. Chatterji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amlesh Kr. Verma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Birendra Kumar, AC to SC-12. ----------- 04/ 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 15.12.2004 passed in Certificate Case No.257 of 2001-02 by which the Certificate Officer, Madhubani passed order under section 10 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and rejected the objection filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Act. 3. It transpires that the petitioner had earlier come before this court vide C.W.J.C. No.11899 of 2004 which was allowed on 28.09.2004 (Annexure-1) directing the petitioner to file objection under section 9 of the Act, whereafter the Certificate Officer was directed to hear the parties on the - 2 - objection filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate order under section 10 of the Act. It was thereafter that objection was filed by the petitioner and the same was decided by the Certificate Officer as per the directions of this court. 4. Now learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is a non-speaking order not meeting the objections raised by him. He further submits that there is a jurisdictional error in the said order and hence the matter has to be remitted to the said Certificate Officer for considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case. I am afraid, no jurisdictional error is there in the impugned order as the Certificate Officer had decided the matter after specific directions given by a Bench of this court vide earlier order dated 28.09.2004. 5. So far the question of remitting the case to the Certificate Officer is concerned, the same can be done by the appellate authority, if the authority finds it fit and proper. So far the other objections raised by the petitioner are concerned, they can very well be considered and decided in appeal which is specifically provided by section 60 of the Act against such orders. The said remedy of appeal is proper and efficacious remedy which the petitioner should have availed. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner along with a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning the delay and other requisites within four weeks from - 3 - today, the said authority shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of two months thereafter. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)