IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3779 of 2009 SADANAND CHOUDHARY, son of Sri Damodar Chaudhary, resident of Village – Moro, P S – Moro, District – Darbhanga at present Mohalla Shahganj Benta, P.S. Laheriasarai, District – Darbhanga. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Darbhanga. 3. The Certificate Officer cum District Co-operative Officer, Darbhanga. 4. Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union, Patna. 5. Senior Regional Officer, Biscomaun, Darbhanga resident of Mohalla – Mirjapur, P O – Lalbagh, P S – L N Mithila University, Darbhanga, District – Darbhanga. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s. Ajay Thakur and Raghunandan Kumar Singh. For the State : Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, G.A.1. For the Biscomaun : Mr. Vikas Kumar. -------- 04. 16.02.2010 Since a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent State the writ application is taken up in its own merit and no order is required to be passed in the I.A. as the writ itself can be disposed of in view of the pleadings on record. In the present writ application petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 5.1.2009 which has been passed by the learned Collector, Darbhanga in Case No. 99 of 2002-03. The appeal filed on behalf of Biscomaun has been allowed by virtue of which two orders dated 20.8.2002 and 23.10.2002 passed by the District Co-operative Officer cum Certificate Officer, Darbhanga have been set aside. An action was taken against the 2 petitioner for recovery of certain amount which as per the allegation was misappropriated by him. There was an audit objection due to shortage of fertilizers. Petitioner was saddled with responsibility and a certificate case came to be initiated. Earlier not satisfied with the reasoning assigned to the objection petition filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act, a writ application was filed by him which was registered as CWJC No. 3510 of 2006. Matter was heard and it came to be decided vide order dated 15.2.2008. The Court relegated the matter back to the Collector to decide the legal objections before proceeding further in the proceeding. Petitioner is back again challenging the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 making a pointed submission that all those objections which were urged at the bar in the earlier writ application for which the Court was pleased to remit the matter have been scuttled and not answered by the District Magistrate. In other words the exercise carried out by this Court in its earlier order has turned to be futile and the petitioner has unnecessarily been harassed by being compelled to come to the Court a second time over. Many a things have been stated in the 3 counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State but it is more to do with the background under which the proceeding has been initiated and the action taken against the petitioner. The Court, however, is constrained to record that, that is not the issue in the writ application. The issue is whether the objection of the petitioner under section 9 is required to be met by the Certificate Officer on all the issues or not. Merely brushing it aside and ignoring it is not enough because valuable right conferred under section 9 of the Act in favour of certificate debtors cannot be allowed to be a dead letter. Section 9 gives an opportunity to all the certificate debtors to get the matter settled before a liability can be fastened on them under the law. In view of the stand of the respondents and having perused the impugned order contained in annexure-1, the same stands quashed and the matter is remanded back afresh with a hope that the concerned authority shall apply his mind to the issues and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )