IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.89 of 2005 SHASHI BHUSHAN ROY, SON OF LATE SHYAM BAHADUR RAI, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE RAJOURA, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI………………………PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-ADMINISTRATOR, CENTRAL CO- OPERATIVE BANK, BEGUSARAI. 3. DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER-CUM-CERTIFICATE OFFICER,BEGUSARAI 4. DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE REGISTRAR, BEGUSARAI 5. JOINT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE, BHAGALPUR-CUM- MUNGER COMMISSIONERY AT BHGAGALPUR 6. SRI TUNTUN RAI, SON OF SRI UPENDRA RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE RAJOURA AND PRESENT MUKHIYA OF RAJOURA PANCHAYAT, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Purnendu Narayan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mrs. Archana Sinha, A.C. to S.C-12 ----------- 03/ 03.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing respondents not to take any coercive step for realisation of loan if any payable during the pendency of the petition and to furnish details of the case number and notice of demand issued under section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act and to supply the Certificate Case number and copy of the requisition to enable the petitioner to file objection under section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. In paragraph-16 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner that there had been serious irregularities in maintaining the account of Rajoura Primary Agriculture Co- - 2 - operative Societies which had been committed by the respondents and hence to save themselves from their respective liabilities and to meet the surcharges upon them without initiating the certificate proceeding in accordance with law and without service of notice to be issued under section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act, the Collector-cum- Administrator Central Co-operative Bank of Begusarai (respondent no.2) and the District Co-operative Officer-cum Certificate Officer, Begusarai (respondent no.3) had sent police force to arrest the petitioner without showing the cause of arrest to the petitioner and hence the action of the respondents were arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and malafide. 4. The claim of the petitioner appears to be contradictory in nature as at one place he has sought relief for supplying the number of Certificate Case whereas at the other place he has stated that the respondents did not get any certificate proceeding initiated as per the law nor any notice has been issued under section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act. Furthermore, six years have lapsed since letter dated 16.09.2004 annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-2 was sent, but what happened thereafter has not been stated by the petitioner and hence it transpires that nothing has been done thereafter. Furthermore the petitioner has not even sought any relief challenging the order of attachment alleged to have been passed against the petitioner. 5. In the said circumstances, this court does not - 3 - find any material supporting the claim of petitioner and hence this writ petition is dismissed. However, if any proceeding is initiated against the petitioner, the petitioner may challenge the same before the appropriate authority as per the provisions of the Public Demand Recovery Act which if such application is filed it shall be decided in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)