JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner Shashidhar Prasad Sinha is challenging the order passed by the District Co-operative-cum Certificate Officer, Patna (respondent no. 2) dated the 23rd January 1971, in a certificate proceeding for keeping him in custody (civil prison) in execution of the certificate proceeding on the ground that the order is without jurisdiction for non–compliance of the mandatory provision of section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. The petitioner is a certificate debtor in Certificate Case No. 18 D.B. of 1969-70. He was the Secretary of Bharatpura Multipurpose Co-operative Society and at the instance of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dinapore, an award proceeding under section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, was started for realisation of some money against the said Co-operative Society through its Secretary, namely, the petitioner. In the said proceeding on 4.8.1969, the Assistant Registrar passed an award decree for Rs. 26,502/- as principal and Rs. 2095.58 as interest which was also confirmed on appeal by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Farming) Bihar vide Annexure 'B' to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. A requisition was made on 9th January, 1970 to the Certificate Officer for issuing a certificate and on that basis the aforesaid certificate case was instituted. 3. Notice under section 7 of the Act, was issued on different persons and the process–server in his service report dated 24.1.1970 stated that. "SHASHIDHAR PRA. SINGH SE MULKKAT NAHI HUA PUCHHNE PAR PATA CHALA KI WE PATNA RAHTE HAIN UNKA PATA NICHE LIKHA HUA HAI (SHRI SHASHIDHAR PRD. SINGH M.I.G. H. 58 KANKAR–BAGH COLONY) IS LIE UNKE NAM KA NOTICE UTTAR RUKH MAKAN MEN LATKA DIA. UNKE KHILAF KOI ADMI GAWAHI NAHI BANAYA" The process–server had gone to affect the service of the notice under section 7 of the Act, at the address of the petitioner at his village home in Bharatpura. No further attempt was made by the certificate officer to effect any fresh service on the petitioner either at his Patna address, as stated in the peon's report, (quoted above) or any other made by way of substituted service. The result was, as it appears from the events following thereaftar and the statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition, that the petitioner remained unaware of this certificate proceeding. 4. The result was, as it appears from the events following thereaftar and the statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition, that the petitioner remained unaware of this certificate proceeding. 4. A criminal proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner before the Bikram police for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 14,000/- and odd. The petitioner surrendred in court in the criminal case and while be was in custody, on 9th January, 1971, the Prakhand Vikas Padadhikari, Bikram (respondent no. 5) informed the Certificate Officer that the petitioner was already in Bankipur Jail and as it appears from the counter–affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, a prayer for warrant of his arrest was made as that was thought to be the only remedy for realisation of the certificate dues. In accordance with the request and after getting subsistence allowance deposited, the Certificate Officer issued the impugned order on 23rd January, 1971, issuing custody warrant for keeping him in custody in the certificate case in question and accordingly the said order of the petitioner's arrest was communicated to him in the prescribed form no. 7 through the officer-in-charge (Civil Prison,) Bankipore Jail, Patna. 5. This order is challenged by the petitioner on two grounds firstly that no notice was served upon him under section 7 of the Act, as already said earlier and secondly that without determining the extent of the liability of the petitioner under the certificate dues it could not be executed against him. 6. Counter–affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Certificate Officer as well as respondent nos. 4 and 5 namely, the Dinapore Massaurhi Co-operative Bank, Dinapore and the Prakhanda Vikas Padadhikari, Bikram Block. Affidavits of the latter two respondents, however, have got no bearing on the question as to whether the order of arrest of the petitioner is legal for non-compliance of the provision of section 7 of the Act, the stand of those respondents is on the merits of liability of the petitioner. We do not, therefore, think that it is necessary to refer to the facts stated in those counter–affidavits. 7. So far as the counter–affidavit of respondent no. 2 is concerned, it is by the successor-in-office of the Certificate Officer who has passed the impugned order on 23rd January 1971 for keeping the petitioner in civil prison. We do not, therefore, think that it is necessary to refer to the facts stated in those counter–affidavits. 7. So far as the counter–affidavit of respondent no. 2 is concerned, it is by the successor-in-office of the Certificate Officer who has passed the impugned order on 23rd January 1971 for keeping the petitioner in civil prison. The stand of this respondent is that the service of the notice under section 7 of the Act, was validly effected. Reliance has been placed upon Rule 6 of the Rules framed under section 47 of the Act, which reads as follows:– "Procedure where certificate–debtor refuses or accept service or cannot be found–Where the certificate–debtor or his agent, or such other person aforesaid, refused to sign the acknowledgement, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence cannot find the certificate–debtor and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the notice on his behalf nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall. (a) Affix a copy of the notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the certificate–debtor ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or (b) xx xx xx" It is apparent from the above provision that the process server must exercise his due diligence to find out the certificate-debtor, that is, emphasis is on the personal service, and not that he being aware that the notice affixed would not reach him, would still do that and the certificate–debtor will be deemed to be duly served. 8. Section 7 of the Act, lays down that when a certificate has been filed in the office of a Certificate Officer under section 4 or 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 within thirty days from the execution of any process for enforcing the certificate, he may present a petition in the prescribed form, as provided under section 9 of the Act, denying his liability. Section 10 provides for a regular hearing of the petition by the Certificate officer and appeal is provided against his decision. A more comprehensive machinery has been prescribed than an enquiry contemplated under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure under the Scheme of the Certificate proceeding. Section 10 provides for a regular hearing of the petition by the Certificate officer and appeal is provided against his decision. A more comprehensive machinery has been prescribed than an enquiry contemplated under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure under the Scheme of the Certificate proceeding. It was, and if we may say with our utmost respect, the Judicial Committee in Baijnath Sahai, 23 I.A. 45, rightly observed that a certificate being an ex-parte decree and filed behind the back of the certificate debtor, the right to impugned the validity and correctness of the demand is reserved to a stage to come after the service of notice under section 7 of the Act. In these circumstances, the service of notice assumed a greater importance as in its absence a certificate–debtor is denied of a very valuable right to challenge his liability at the very initial stage. Not only that, the service of notice required by section 7 of the Act, confers jurisdiction to the Certificate Officer to execute the certificate. A learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Anand Ballabh vs. The State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1953 Pat 313, on examining the scheme of the Act, has observed that non–service of such notice takes away the jurisdiction to issue a warrant of arrest on the certificate–debtor under section 15 of the Act, (Section 15 deals with modes of execution) it does not appear necessary for us to go to that extent. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 placed strong reliance upon Rule 6, already quoted above and contended that inasmuch as according to the peon's report, the petitioner was not found, the mode of serving the notice under section 7 of the Act, on residential house was a due compliance of Rule 6 and therefore, the service of the notice under section 7 must be held to have been validly served. 9. It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Government pleader and in our opinion the procedure contemplated under Rule 6 does not warrant the service of the notice by affixing a copy on the outer door where it may be known to the process server definitely that it would not be noticed by the Certificate debtor. 9. It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Government pleader and in our opinion the procedure contemplated under Rule 6 does not warrant the service of the notice by affixing a copy on the outer door where it may be known to the process server definitely that it would not be noticed by the Certificate debtor. The last recourse of service by affixing a copy of the notice at the residential house has to be taken only when the serving peon cannot find out the certificate debtor. In this case it was known to the process–server that the petitioner was residing at Kankarbagh Colony and that affixing the notice at his village home would be a mere formality and that the petitioner could not derive knowledge of the certificate proceeding. It is not the case of any of the respondent that any attempt was made by the serving officer at any time later on to effect any service on the petitioner when the petitioner was actually not living at his village home during the relevant period. In our considered opinion the affixation of copy of a notice as provided in clause (a) of Rule 6, will not serve the purpose of effecting any valid service where it is known to the service officer that as a matter of fact, the certificate debtor is residing somewhere else and the copy affixed at his residential house will not be found by him. 10. From the above discussions, we feel no hesitation to take the view that in this case the purported service of the notice under section 7 of the Act, was merely an empty formality and was not a legal and valid service in the eye of law. It follows, therefore, that there was no service of the notice under section 7 and therefore, the entire subsequent proceeding taken against petitioner including the impugned order directing his arrest and putting him in civil prison by the impugned order must be held to be invalid. We have already taken a similar view only a few days back (2.8.1976) in C.W.J.C. No. 597 of 1973. 11. It is not necessary to consider any other point raised in the petition and the counter affidavits for the view that we have taken with respect to the first point urged before us. We have already taken a similar view only a few days back (2.8.1976) in C.W.J.C. No. 597 of 1973. 11. It is not necessary to consider any other point raised in the petition and the counter affidavits for the view that we have taken with respect to the first point urged before us. This application must succeed and the impugned order set aside on that point alone. 12. For the reasons stated above, this application must succeed and the order dated 23rd January, 1971 passed by respondent no. 2 in the certificate proceeding in question must be quashed. Let an appropriate writ issue accordingly. In the circumstances, however, we shall make no order as to costs. Application allowed.