IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8861 of 2006 Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, son of Siya Ram Pandey, resident of Village and P.O. Bharauli, Police Station Sahpur, District-Bhojpur ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. Patna through its Managing Director Budh Marg, Patna. 3. The Senior Regional Manager-cum-Certificate Officer, Land Development Bank, Arrah, Bhojpur. 4. Branch Manager Land Development Bank, Branch Bihiya, District-Bhojpur ------ Respondents. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocate For the State : Mr.Amaresh Kumar, A.C. to G.P.20 For the Bank : Mr. Rajesh Pd. Choudhary,Advocate. ---------- 3. 21.12.2011 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: (i) For quashing the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No.15/2000-2001 initiated against the petitioner before respondent no.3. (ii) For direction to the respondents to impose and realize yearly interest at the rate of 6% on the loan amount because the loan had been taken for the agricultural purpose. (iii) For directions to the respondents to reconcile the account of the petitioner after making adjustments of the amount so far paid by the petitioner and granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to pay the balance outstanding if any. (iv) To grant such other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled. 2 3. It is specifically claimed by the petitioner that Certificate Case No. 15 of 2000-2001 was initiated against the petitioner in which notice under section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued by the Certificate Officer, Land Development Bank, Arrah. Learned counsel for the petitioner can not say whether any objection under section 9 of the Act was filed by him and he only submits that although he has already paid Rs.60,000/- whereafter he has also deposited huge amount with respect to the loan. 4. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that although the petitioner showed absence of knowledge with respect to any order passed under Section 10 of the Act but without passing any such order no distress warrant of arrest could have been legally issued. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 60 of the Act against any final order passed by the Certificate Officer in the said proceeding. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner along with all the requisites and a copy of this order as well as an interlocutory application for condoning 3 the delay, the appellate authority shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ petition and shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. 6.If any interim order is required by the petitioner, he may file interlocutory application before the appellate authority, who shall decide the same without any delay. Vinay/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)