CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9147 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Article 226 Of the Constitution of India. -------- MUNSILAL SHARMA S/O LATE RAGHUWAR SHARMA R/O VILLAGE LATBASEPURA PS MUSRIGHARAARI, DISTT.-SAMATIPUR--PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRTE, SAMASTIPUR 2. THE SAMASTIPUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER-CUM-CERTIFICATE OFFICER, SAMATIPUR 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE SAMASTIPUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. SAMASTIPUR 5. THE PRIMARY AGRIGULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY, GANGAPUR, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN PS. MUSRIGHARARI, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR--- ----------------- RESPONDENTS -------- For The Petitioner :Mr.CHOUDHARY SHYAM NANDAN, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.2,3 &4: Mr. D.N. Yadav, Advocate For The State : Mr. R.K.Priyadarshi, JC to AAGIII -------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI A.K.Tripathi,J Petitioner challenges the order dated 16.6.1999 passed by the certificate officer, Samastipur in Certificate Case no. 3/98-99. By virtue of this order petitioner was made to deposit the certificate amount and its cost before his release from custody for so called loan which he denied to have taken from the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Gangapur Society in the District of Samastipur. He, therefore, wants quashing of the certificate proceeding and the final order passed in the case. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that large scale irregularities were committed by the Chairman of the PACS body in disbursements of loan to its members and huge amount of public amount had been misappropriated. The post of Chairman has been held by the father and son between the years 1989-99 and they have fudged the record of the bank and shown - 2 - loan amount outstanding against the petitioner and other members, based on which this certificate proceeding was initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the notice under section 7 of the Act a so called objection filed by him in terms of annexure-7, his objection was not decided by the certificate officer but he was detained which compelled him to deposit the certificate amount to buy his freedom. On deposit of the said amount on 16.6.1999 the proceeding was dropped and he was released from custody. He also submits that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh versus The State of Bihar & Ors. along with other analogous cases in the decision reported in 1994 (1) BLJ 706 has held that there is no occasion to detain a person in a civil prison before issuance of notice under section 7 and disposal of the objection filed thereafter and due adjudication in this regard. Certain detention made in contravention of the procedure established was held to be illegal and a kind of cost was awarded in favour of such petitioners. The proposition of law as well as the provisions under the statute is not the question in the present case. A notice was issued to the petitioner and based on the notice he replied in terms of ananexure-7 but he accepted that it was not an objection in terms of the Act and rule in this regard. Thereafter a distress warrant has been issued against the petitioner. He was detained on 16.6.1999 and on that very day he deposited the certificate amount of Rs. 7297/- along with the cost when the - 3 - proceeding was closed. He was released for custody. Based on the decision of the Division Bench there seems to be some breach of procedure committed by the certificate officer if the factum of detention of the petitioner on the day concerned is accepted to be correct. But then the amount claimed against the petitioner as public demand was payable or not payable is an issue which could never be decided by the certificate officer because the petitioner has settled the amount by due payment. There is neither any pleading in the writ application nor any statement that the amount was deposited on protest reserving his right to challenge. The deposit of the amount is against the so called loan. In absence of such material it may not be possible for this Court to declare the proceeding to be illegal. The Court does not want to reopen the settled issue now after almost a decade. In the given circumstances therefore the Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter. This writ application is dismissed. However there will be no order as to cost. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 17th November, 2008 NAFR/RPS/Sr.Secy.