IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2206 of 2007 1. SHAKIL KHAN 2. ANSAR KHAN BOTH S/O LATE ANWARUL HODA KHAN OF MOHALLA-BAKERGANJ,P0-BANKIPUR,PS-PIRBAHORE DISTT PATNA ----------------------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER,PATNA-CUM CERTIFICATE OFFICER, PATNA 4. THE BIHAR AWAMI CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PATNA-----------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 2.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Order dated 4.5.2006 contained in annexure-1 passed in P.D.R. Appeal No. 1/04-05 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. The appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by learned Collector on the ground that despite several indulgence the petitioner has failed to deposit of 40% of the certificate dues at the time of filing of the appeal. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there is error in the order itself because the petitioner had filed the appeal in question under section 60 of the Act but the Collector has recorded that the payment of 40% which the statutory requirement under section 62 of the Act. Section 62 of the Act is the power of revision conferred upon the authority. Why learned Collector has dealt with the appeal under revisional jurisdiction is not known. Requirements both under sections 60 and 62 of the Act are identical with regard to deposit of 40% of the certificate dues. There seems to be some typographical mistake or a kind of omission in the order of the Collector dated 4.5.2006 but the fact is - 2 - that there is failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit to deposit 40% of the certificate dues which led to dismissal of his appeal. The petitioner now submits that he is willing to deposit the said 40% and may take steps even to resolve or iron out the dues which is being shown against him as due amount. Prima facie there is no much of error in the order dated 4.5.2006 but as a final indulgence is shown if the petitioner deposits 40% of the certificate dues within three weeks from today. If it is done the impugned order dated 4.5.2006 would be deemed to have been set aside and the appeal of the petitioner would be considered afresh. If there is failure on his part then the order dated 4.5.2006 shall continue to operate and no further interference will be warranted in the same. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)