IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7215 of 2005 ----------- Satyendra Singh Yadav, son of Sri Deonandan Singh Yadav, resident of village Radhakhand P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Kaimur …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua 3. The District Certificate Officer, Kaimur at Bhabhua 4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Bhagwanpur Branch, District Kaimur. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mrs Binita Singh, A.C. to A.A.G. 1 For respondent no.4: Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate ------ 03/ 10.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice dated 13.10.2003 (Annexure 2) issued by the Certificate Officer under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity ) in Certificate Case No. 51(B) of 2003-2004, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,40,770.00 against the loan amount of Rs.95,000.00, which was given by the Bank to him to start the dairy farming under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna Scheme and for restraining the respondents from implementing the order of proclamation and the order of arrest, if any. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, in which the claim of the petitioner has been vehemently contested and it has been stated that the petitioner is not only a hopeless defaulter but he has also violated every principle of 2 equity in not discharging the loan for long years. It is also stated that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner is in accordance with law and the petitioner is liable to pay the amount demanded from him. 4. However, from the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that against the impugned notice under section 7 of the Act, the petitioner has already filed his objection under section 9 of the Act, but the same is still pending before the authority concerned as has been claimed by learned counsel for both the parties. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Certificate Officer, Kaimur at Bhabhua (respondent no.3) to dispose of the objection filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Act within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if not yet disposed of. If any order under section 10 of the Act is passed and against which the petitioner has any grievance, he may file an appeal, which is specifically provided in the Statute. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )