IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.423 of 2010 1. Durgapur Tel Utpadak Sahyog Samiti, Bhawanipur, P.S- Bhawanipur, District- Purnia represented through Sushil Kumar Yadav - the Chairman of the Sahyog Samiti at and P.S- Bhawanipur, District, Purnia. 2. Mahesh Lal Choudhary, S/O Late Saryug Choudhary, Secretary of Durgapur Tel Utpadak Sahyog Samiti at and Police Station - Bhawanipur ,District-Purnia. 3. Sushil Kumar Yadav, S/O Parmeshwar Yadav,Chairman of Durgapur Tel Utpadak Sahyog Samiti at and P.S- Bhawanipur , District- Purnia 4. Bhagawan Pandit, S/O Late Kashi Pandit Cashier of Durgapur Tel Utpadak Sahyog Samiti at and Police Station - Bhawanipur, District- Purnia, No.2 and 4 residents of Village Durgapur and No.3 resident of Village Bhawanipur all within Police Station at Bhawanipur, District-Purnia ------- Petitioners ----- Appellants. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia 3. The Collector, Purnia 4. The Purnia District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Head Office at Court Compound , Purnia having Branch at Bhawanipur within the District of Purnia 5. The Managing Director of the Purnia District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited Purnia cum Certificate Officer Purnia 6. The Branch Manager, the Purnia District Central Co- Operative Bank Limited Branch at Bhawanipur within the District of Purnia ----- Respondents ----- Respondents. ----------- 2. 23.3.2011 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha for the appellant, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.17 for the State of Bihar, and Mr. Niti Ranjan Jha for respondent no.5. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioners of C.W. J.C. No. 279 of 2 2007, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 4.2.2010, and it has been observed that the writ petitioners would be well advised to file objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to be as ‘the Act’) before the Certificate Officer. 2. While assailing the validity of the order of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the certificate case can not proceed in view of the proviso to Clause 15 of Schedule I of the Act because there is no written agreement inter-parties that dues shall be recoverable within the meaning of the Act. He next submits that the entire dues have been paid in pursuance of one-time settlement. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the writ petition and the present appeal are not maintainable at the instance of the present appellants. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The issues raised on behalf of both sides are essentially issues of facts which can not be determined within the narrow confines of writ jurisdiction. We entirely 3 agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. In view of the dispute between the parties, the writ petitioners would be well advised to raise appropriate objection under Section 9 of the Act before the learned Certificate Officer which shall be disposed of by a reasoned order. 4. This appeal is dismissed. The learned Certificate Officer is hereby directed to ensure final disposal of the objection under Section 9 of the Act within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( S. P. Singh, J.)