IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11121 of 2011 M/S Mahavir Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. through its Managing Director namely Siddharth Kishore, son of Ratneshwar Prasad Singh, resident of village Gangapur, P.S. Musari Gharari, District Samastipur. ………Petitioner. Versus 1. Bihar State Elelctricity Board through the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Dalsingsarai. 2. Superintending Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Samastipur, Samastipur Division, Samastipur. 3. Electrical Executive Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Electric supply Division, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur. 4. The State of Bihar through the District Certificate Officer, Samastipur. ….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate. For respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. Anand K. Ojha, Advocate. For respondent no.4 : Mr. Anant Kumar, A. C. to A.A.G.II. -------- 04/ 17.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board and its authorities as well as learned counsel for the State of Bihar who is appearing for the District Certificate Officer, Samastipur. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the entire Certificate Case No.02 of 2009-10 pending before the District Certificate Officer, Samastipur initiated at the instance of Bihar State Electricity Board against the Managing Director namely Siddharth Kishore of the petitioner-company under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) in which notice under Section 7 had already been issued. 3. It transpires that earlier CWJC no.10442 of 2010 had - 2 - been filed by the petitioner for a similar relief, but the said case was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Certificate Officer, Samastipur by filing a supplementary objection petition under Section 9 of the Act within a period of two weeks from that day which was directed to be considered and disposed of by the District Certificate Officer in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks thereafter. 4. The order-sheet of Certificate Case No.02 of 2009-10 has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition which shows that on 09.04.2011 an order had been passed by the District Certificate Officer in which it was found that the claim of the respondents was in accordance with the agreement and hence the amount claimed is fit to be realised and processes were directed to be issued. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order is not a decision under Section 10 of the Act, whereas learned counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar submits that by this order the objection of the petitioner has been disposed of. 6. From the aforesaid order it clearly transpires that neither the objection raised by the petitioner in his objection petition or in his supplementary objection petition filed as per the directions of this court has at all been considered nor any part of the said order sheet shows rejection of the claim/objection of the petitioner. - 3 - 7. In the said circumstances, the said order is hereby quashed and this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Certificate Officer, Samastipur to consider the objection of the petitioner to the claim of the requisitionist authority and decide the objection under Section 10 of the Act expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order if passed under Section 10 of the Act, he shall be entitled to challenge the same before the appellate forum provided in the Act. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)