IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5577 of 2006 Ram Udgar Mahto, son of Shri Raghuni Mahto, resident of village Gendharpur, P.O. Amba, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Begusarai. …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Begusarai. 3. The Certificate Officer, Begusarai. 4. The Deputy Director, Mines, Circle Saharsa, District Saharsa 5.The Assistant Mines Officer, Begusarai. … Respondents ------------------------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, A.C. to G.A.1 For the Mines : Mr. V.M. K. Sinha, AAG 13 and Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, J.C. to AAG 13 --------------------------------- 03/ 24.11.2011 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 notice under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 dated 16.09.2004 and the entire certificate proceeding bearing no. 30/2004-05 and the entire certificate proceeding bearing no. 30/2004-05 started thereon (Annexure 3). (ii) Further for quashing the certificate in Form No.1 dated nil issued in certificate case no. nil , RM.-38/200304 and further proceeding started thereon (Annexure 3). (iii) For payment of suitable compensation which may deem fit and proper. (iv) For any other relief or reliefs which may deem fit and proper be granted to the petitioner. (v) Payment of cost of litigation throughout. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that a notice under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter 2 referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) was issued by the authorities on 16.09.2004 in Certificate Case No. 30 of 2004-05, whereafter the petitioner filed his objection under section 9 of the Act, but without deciding the said objection and without passing any final order, the authorities have issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner and are also taking coercive action against him. 4 From the facts of this case, it is quite apparent that although five years have lapsed, but the petitioner has not been arrested as yet and no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-authorities. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities to decide the objection of the petitioner dated 11.02.2006 (Annexure 5), if not yet decided, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If such an order is passed or has already been passed by the authority concerned, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same before an appropriate forum as provided under the Act. However, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner till the final order is passed in the said certificate case. The petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate in the early disposal of the certificate case. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)