IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.34 of 2008 ---- 1. ANAND MOHAN SINGH, SON OF LATE JANGI SINGH, RESIDENT OF –AKAASHI, P.O. MOKAR, P.S. SASARAM, DISTRICT-ROHTAS ….PETITIONER/APPELLAN T Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, SASARAM BRANCH, P.S.SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS. 4. THE CERTIFICATE OFFICER, ROHTAS AT SASARAM …….RESPONDENTS For the Appellant : Mr. Bajrangi Lal, Advocate For the Respondent no. 1 : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG III For the Respondent nos. 2 & 3: Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ---------- Dated, the 17th November, 2008. After having heard counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that this Letters Patent Appeal is wholly misconceived and devoid of any substance. It is not disputed by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was joint borrower along with his father - 2 - and brother in respect of a loan taken for the purchase of a tractor from the respondent no. 3 – State Bank of India (for short, „the Bank‟). It is also not in dispute that borrowers had defaulted in payment of loan amount. It is also an admitted position that save and except the present appellant, the other two joint borrowers, namely, the appellant‟s father and brother had died. 2. The Bank filed certificate on requisition to Certificate Officer against all the three borrowers ( two of whom were already dead) under section 6 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (for short, „the Act‟). The Certificate Officer dropped the proceedings in its entirety. The Bank preferred appeal before the Collector. The Collector, set aside the order of the Recovery Officer in so far as the appellant is concerned and remanded the matter back to the Recovery Officer for proceeding against him. The order dated 14th March, 2005 passed by the Collector came to be challenged by the appellant in the writ petition. The Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide his order dated 26th November, 2007 and hence, the present appeal. 3. Section 6 of the Act provides as follows: “6. Filing of certificate on requisition – On receipt of any such requisition the certificate officer, if he is satisfied that the demand is recoverable and that recovery by suit is not barred by law, may sign a certificate, in the prescribed form, stating that the demand is due and shall include in the certificate the fee if any paid under section 5, sub - 3 - section (2); and shall cause the certificate to be filed in his office.” 4. Section 7 of the Act provides for service of a copy of the certificate and notice in prescribed form on the Certificate-debtor. Section 7 reads thus: “7. Service of notice and copy of certificate on certificate debtor- When a certificate has been filed in the office of a certificate officer under section 4 or section 6, he shall cause to be served upon the certificate-debtor, in the prescribed manner, a notice in the prescribed form and a copy of the certificate.” 5. As would be seen, issuance of certificate under section 6 of the Act is ex-parte and, therefore, section 7 provides notice to be issued to the certificate debtor to enable him to take exception to the validity and correctness of such certificate and raise all objections available to him in law in opposition thereto. 6. Once objections are filed by the debtor, the Certificate Officer is obliged to hear the debtor on such objections and determine the issues raised by him and then issue a final certificate or set aside/modify the certificate already issued. The provision regarding such enquiry is made in section 10 of the Act, which reads thus: “10. Hearing and determining of such petition- The Certificate Officer in whose office the original certificate is filed shall hear the petition, take evidence (if necessary) and determine whether the certificate –debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount for which the certificate was signed; and may set aside, modify or vary the certificate accordingly: - 4 - Provided that if the Certificate Officer is not the Collector, and considers that the petition involves a bonafide claim of right to property, he shall refer the petition to the Collector for orders, and the Collector, if he is satisfied that a bonafide claim of right to property is involved, shall make an order canceling the certificate.” 7. The Scheme of the aforesaid provisions, thus, would show that certificate on requisition made by the creditor is subject to the objections that may be filed by the borrower upon receipt of notice under section 7 of the Act. 8. In a case like this, where the certificate on requisition was against three persons, two of whom were already dead prior to the filing of requisition, the requisition cannot be said to be non est against the borrower who was alive as he has an opportunity under section 7 of the Act to file his objections to such certificate 9. Seen thus, the appellate authority, i.e., the Collector cannot be said to have committed any error in remanding the matter back to the Certificate Officer for proceeding against the appellant. More over, the counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the liability of the appellant along with co-borrowers was joint and several. 11. Obviously, upon remand, the appellant shall be at liberty to submit his objections on available grounds save and except the grounds that initiation of requisition jointly against the appellant and the co-borrowers who were dead, was a nullity. - 5 - 10. The consideration of the matter by the Single Judge does not suffer from any legal flaw. Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Anil/