Judgment Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. 1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who had been taken into custody by the order of the Certificate officer (respondent no.2) in the purported exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Bihar and Orissa Public demands Recovery Act 1914 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). 2. It appears that a certificate case was filed in the Court of the Certificate officer (respendent no.2) saying that rs.6,558.60 was due from the petitioner and his other family members named in one of the columns of the form prescribed under Secs.4 and 6 of the Act. On the back side of that form there is an endorsement dated 5-1-78 made by the anchal Adhikari saying that in spite of repeated demands the aforesaid amount has not been paid and as such the money should be realised. On 6-1-78, the certificate Officer passed an order saving "requisition received. Issue notice under sec.7 and the Distress warrant returnable by 15-4-1978. " There is nothing mentioned in the order-sheet as to when the notice under Sec.7 was issued or served on the petitioner and his other co-sharers but from the duplicate copy of the notice which had been issued to the petitioner it appears that the petitioner had received that notice on the 10 of the February, 1978. From the order passed by the Certificate Officer on 25-2-78 it further appears that a report had been submitted by the Anchal adhikari saying that this petitioner was looking after the affairs of the family and as such the warrant of arrest should be issued against him and on that very date, the Certificate Officer issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner In execution of that warrant of arrest the petitioner was taken into custody and produced before the Certificate Officer on 9-3-78. He passed an order saving that as this petitioner had not paid the amount due, he should be sent to civil prison and should be released only after he clears his dues Thereafter an amount of Rs.741.28 which was the snare of the petitioner out of the total amount due was deposited and on 13-3-78 the Anchal Adhikari informed the certificate Officer about the clearance of the dues by the petitioner and made a request that now he should be released. He also made a request that the certificate case should now proceed against the other co-sharers. A copy of that report is Annexure 2 to the writ application. That report was placed before the certificate Officer on 13-3-78 itself. On that date, the Certificate Officer rejected the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to be released saying that the whole amount had not been realised and as the petitioner was a member of the joint family he could not be released till the dues were satisfied. A copy of this order is Annexure 3 to the writ application. 3. This writ application was filed on behalf of the petitioner on 16-3-78 as according to the petitioner, his detention in civil prison was without any authority in law. This Court admitted the writ application on 17-3-78 and directed that during the pendency of the application the petitioner be released on furnishing bail-bond. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Certificate Officer has adopted a procedure which is unknown, to law and has acted in contravention of the different sections of the Act, as such the detent ion of the petitioners is without any authority in law. Sec.4 of the Act provides that when the Certificate Officer is satisfied that any public demand payable co the Collector is due, he may sign the certificate in the prescribed form stating that the demand is due and shall cause the certificate to be filed in his office. Sec.5 applies to cases where the public demand is payable to any person other than the Collector. In that case such person has to send to the Certificate officer a written requisition in the prescribed form. Sec.6 enables the Certificate officer on requisition being made under Sec.5, and if he is satisfied that the demand is recoverable and not barred by law, to sign the certificate and cause it to be filed in his office. Under Sec, 7, in either case whether the amount is payable to the Collector or payable to any other person, the Certificate Officer has to serve upon the certificate-debtor, in the prescribed manner, a notice in the prescribed form and a copy of the certificate. Sec.9 of the act proyides that the certificate debtor may within thirty days from the date of notice under Sec.7, deny his liability in whole or in part. Sec.9 of the act proyides that the certificate debtor may within thirty days from the date of notice under Sec.7, deny his liability in whole or in part. Once the liability is denied in part or whole, Sec.10 enjoins on the Certificate Officer to determine whether the certificate-debtor is liable for the whole or part of the amount for which the certificate was signed. Part III deals with the execution of certificates. Sec.15 of this part is as follows : "no step in execution of a certificate shall be taken until the period of thirty days has elapsed since the date of the service of the notice required by Secs.7 and 11, or when a petition has been duly filed under Sec.9, until such petition has been heard and determined :" "provided that, if the Certificate Officer in whose office a certificate is filed is satisfied that the certificate-debtor is likely to conceal, remove or dispose of the whole or any part of such of his moveable property as is liable to attachment under this Act, and that the realization of the amount of the certificate would inconsequence be delayed or obstructed, he may at any time direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, an attachment of the whole or any part of such moveable property. " This section requires the Certificate Officer not to take any step in execution until the period of thirty days has elapsed since the date of service of the notice required by Sec.7. Sec.38 and onwards deal with the provisions to arrest and release of the certificate debtor. Sec.38 provides that the certificate-debtor may be arrested in execution of a certificate. Sec.40 enumerates the conditions when a certificate-debtor can be detained in civil prison and it also prescribes the conditions under which he has to be released from detention. One of the conditions under which he can be released is on the request of the person on whose requisition the certificate was filed or on the request of the Collector. 5 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case there has been a violation of the provisions of Sec.14 of the Act inasmuch is the Certificate Officer proceeded to execute the certificate before the expiry of the period of thirty days from the date of service of the notice under Sec.7 of the Act. 5 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case there has been a violation of the provisions of Sec.14 of the Act inasmuch is the Certificate Officer proceeded to execute the certificate before the expiry of the period of thirty days from the date of service of the notice under Sec.7 of the Act. This submission was made on the basis that the notice under Sec.7 of the Act was served on the petitioner on 10-2-78 and the Certificate officer passed an order for issuance of the warrant of arrest on 25-2-78 itself, He further pointed out that when the Anchal Adhikari, after the deposit of Rs.741.28 had requested the certificate Officer for the release of the petitioner, the Certificate Officer should have released him under proviso (iii) to sec.40 of the Act, in as much as the request was made by the person on whose requisition the certificate was filed. In my opinion, there is substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. From the order-sheet of the certificate case it is apparent that the certificate was filed on 6-1-78 and notice under Sec.7 was served on the petitioner on 10-2-78 and before he could file his objection denying his liability in whole or in part within the period prescribed under the Act, the Certificate Officer passed the Order, dated 25-2-78 directing the issuance of the warrant of arrest, in execution where of the petitioner was taken into custody and produced before him on 9-3-78 when he was sent to civil prison. In my view, the action aforesaid of the Certificate Officer was in breach and contravention of the provisions of the Act. It has been pointed out by this Court on several occasions that the Act contains some extraordinary provisions some of which are drastic in nature and as such they should be observed in their true spirit. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not point out as to how the petitioner was taken into custody before the period which was available to him for filing the objection denying his liability, in whole or in part, had expired. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not point out as to how the petitioner was taken into custody before the period which was available to him for filing the objection denying his liability, in whole or in part, had expired. In such a situation, i am left with no option but to hold that the order passed on 25-2-78 and thereafter, so far as they relate to the issuance of the warrant of arrest and sending the petitioner to civil prison, were in contravention of the provisions of the Act and are liable to be quashed by this Court. 6. It appears that the order, dated 13-7-78 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to be released, in spite of the request of the Anchal Adhikari that the be released because he had deposited his share of the dues amounting to Rs.741.28 is also against the provisions of the Act referred to above ; but i do not propose to decide that question because there is some confusion as to whether in this case the certificate proceeding had been initiated under Sec.4 of the Act or under Sec.5 of the Act; i. e. , whether the amount was payable to the Collector or to any other officer or department It need not be impressed that proviso (iii) to Sec.40 applies only to the request of the person on whose requisition the certificate is filed, i. e. , cases covered by Sec.5, or on the request of the Collector in respect of the cases coveted by Sec.4 of the Act. 7. This writ application was filed for a writ of habeas corpus. In my view, the petitioner is not entitled to any such writ but certainly, he is entitled to question the legality of the different orders pased in the Certificate proceeding. I have already held those orders to be against the requirement of the Act and as such I allow this application and quash the orders, dated 25-2-78 and there after so far as they-relate to the detention of the petitioner in custody. The certificate Officer shall now proceed with the case in the light of the observation made above. I have already held those orders to be against the requirement of the Act and as such I allow this application and quash the orders, dated 25-2-78 and there after so far as they-relate to the detention of the petitioner in custody. The certificate Officer shall now proceed with the case in the light of the observation made above. Before, I part with the judgment, i may observe that if the requisitioning Officer in the instant case is the Anchal Adhikari who has reported that the petitioner had deposited the amount which was payable by him, then certificate Officer shall consider the desirability of now proceeding against the other co-sharers who are also shown as certificate-debtors in the present certificate case. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. The petitioner is discharged from the bail bond. Shivanugrah Narain. J.- I agree that the order, dated 25-2-78 and all subsequent order of the Certificate Officer in so far as they relate to the arrest and detention of the petitioner, should be quashed. As, however, our attention was not drawn to any decision on Sec.14 of the Bihar and Orissa Public demands and Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). I wish to add a few words of my own. 8. In the present case, it is manifest that the order, dated 25-2-78, by which a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner for realisation of the certificate dues, was passed before the period of thirty days had elapsed since the date of the service of notice under sec.7 of the Act, for, the notice under sec 7 was served on 10-2-78. Sec.14 has already been quoted and in clear, express and peremptory terms it prohibits any step in the execution of a certificate being taken untill the period of thirty days has elapsed since the date of service of the notice required by Sec.7 of the Act. The proviso to Sec.14 carves out an exception to this general rule inasmuch as even before the expiry of the aforesaid period it empowers, in the circumstances specified therm, the Certificate Officer to direct the attachment of the whole or any part of such moveable property. The proviso, however, does not empower the Certificate officer to issue a warrant of arrest before the expiry of the period specified in sec 14 in any circumstance. The proviso, however, does not empower the Certificate officer to issue a warrant of arrest before the expiry of the period specified in sec 14 in any circumstance. Sec.14 is couched in the negative and it regulates the manner of exercise of an exceptional power vested in the Certificate officer in excercise of which the Certificate officer may even arrest the certificate debtor. As the provision is couched in the negative and regulates the manner by which the Certificate Officer may deprive a person of his personal liberty, on general principles, the provisions of Sec.14 must be held to be mandatory. As the order dated 25-2-78 issuing a warrant of arrest has been passed in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Sec.14 of the Act, it must be held to be null and void and all subsequent orders, based on. that order issuing warrant of arrest must also be held to be null and void. As the application succeeds on this ground alone, I do not propose to express any opinion on the contention whether the order refusing to direct the release of the petitioner contravenes the provisions of Sec.40 of the Act. Petition allowed