IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13838 of 2011 Sanoj Kumar Singh son of Sri Birendra Narayan Singh, resident of Village-Sirsia, P.S.-Barhara Kothi, District-Purnia. .........Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Secretary Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintending Engineer, National Highway Division, Purnia. 5. The Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Purnia. 6. The Certificate Officer-cum-Additional Collector, Purnia. .........Respondents ---------------------------------- For Petitioner:- Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishore Jha, Adv. Mr. Diwakar Sinha, Adv. For State:- Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-13 04 22.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- a) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction quashing the initiation of Certificate Case No. 12/2007-2008 and sanctioning and directing issuance of Distress Warrant (D.W.) against the petitioner by order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the Certificate Officer cum Additional Collector, Purnia for recovery of Rs. 83,33,333/-. b) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order, direction commanding the respondents to act in accordance with law and to keep the order sanctioning and directing issuance of Distress Warrant (D.W.) as said above in abeyance and not to take the petitioner in custody till the pendency of this application. c) Any other relief to which the petitioner is found entitled to. - 2 - 3. The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that requisition for the certificate proceeding is not proper and it has not been properly executed and, thus, it is violative of the provision of Clause-1 of Scheduled-II under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). He further submits that the proceeding is also illegal on account of violation of Clause-9 of Scheduled-1 of the Act, as the certificate is also not signed by the Certificate Officer. He further stated that the aforesaid mandatory requirements having not been fulfilled, there can be no public demand as defined under section 3 (6) of the Act, as has been held by a Bench of this Court in case of Shanti Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2000(2) P.L.J.R. 206. With regard to his first and second contentions, he has relied upon other decisions of this Court in case of Satya Narain Jhunjhunwala Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1996 (2) P.L.J.R. 698 and in case of Jai Prakash Dwivedi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1998 (2) P.L.J.R. 498. 4. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that certificate case in question, namely, Certificate Case No. 12/2007-2008 was initiated about four years back and notices were issued to the petitioner but the petitioner did not choose to challenge the same before this Court claiming it to be ab initio void rather he chose to file an objection under section 9 of the Act. The said objection has been decided by the Certificate Officer vide order dated 14.07.2011, rejecting the same and issuing warrant of - 3 - arrest against the petitioner. 5. Only thereafter, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court raising the aforesaid points, although, when he had already resorted to the procedures prescribed under the Act, he should have followed the further procedure prescribed therein by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority provided under the Act, where the petitioner could have raised the said objections, as has been raised here. The said option is still open for the petitioner, but he has wrongly approached this Court although a proper and efficacious remedy has been provided to the petitioner under the Act. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. Safik (S.N.Hussain, J.)