JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Certificate Officer dated 20th August, 1987 directing auction of the property of petitioners mother, the guarantor for realization of an amounts of Rs. 1, 84 15515 p. payable to the Certificate Creditor namely the State Bank of India (Respondent 4) in Certificate No. 87 (M)/1984-85. The petitioner has also proved for quashing the aforesaid Certificate proceeding as being not maintainable. The petitioner claims to have set up a small scale industry known as M/s. Ganpati Chemical Industries having its factory at Raj Guru Compound, Lake Road, Ranchi, The petition was sanctioned a cash Credit Limit by the State Bank of India Kokar Branch Ranchi to the extend of Rs. 1,50,00000. This facility was extended to the petitioner upon the petitioners mother guaranteeing repayment of such amount as may be advanced to the petitioner. Cash Credit Limit was sanctioned on 14-10-1980. According to the petitioner a devastating fire broke out in his factory premises causing considerable loss to the petitioner. On account of the defective Insurance policy only a sum of Rs. 30,868,00 was paid to the petitioner by the Insurance Company and the said amount was deposited in favour of the Bank (respondent no. 4) on 25-2-1983. According to the petitioner since no further loan was available from the Bank, the petitioner had to close down hid Industry. This fact has been denied by the respondent Bank which has stated that no scheme for revival was ever submitted by the petitioner and their was, therefore no question of granting any further amounts by way of loan for revival of the Unit. This, however, is not very material for the disposal of this case. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that the agreement for grant of Case Credit Limit expired by efflux of time on 14-10-1983, but the Bank has asserted that the said agreement had been revived by the petitioner and his mother as guarantor by letter dated 10-10-1983. The petitioner was surprise to receive a notice dated 22-11-1984 from the Certificate Officer, Ranchi, Annexure-2, from which he came to know about the claim of the Bank amounting to Rs. 2,13,063.95 Ps. The petitioner filed his objections under section 9 of the Bihar and Orrisa Public Demand Recover Act, on 9-8-1985and denied his liability to pay the alleges dues. The petitioner was surprise to receive a notice dated 22-11-1984 from the Certificate Officer, Ranchi, Annexure-2, from which he came to know about the claim of the Bank amounting to Rs. 2,13,063.95 Ps. The petitioner filed his objections under section 9 of the Bihar and Orrisa Public Demand Recover Act, on 9-8-1985and denied his liability to pay the alleges dues. According to the petitioner his objection were never heard, nor was any evidence recorded in accordance with section 10 of the Act. The petitioner, however met the official of the Bank and it was manually decided that the petitioner would pay back to the Bank the principal amount only. It was accordingly decided that Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh) would be paid by 2-8-1987 and the balance in monthly instalments. The petitioner claims that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh) was paid by him in three instalments, the last instalments having been paid on 28-7-1987. Despite the payment of this amount, the Certificates Officer refused to stay the auction sale of the hours of the petitioners mother who was the guarantor for the loan. This was despite the fact that the Bank filled an application on 30-7-1987 stating that it had received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh) and it had no objection if the balance amount was paid back in monthly instalments. The Certificate Officer on mere surprises and conjecture passed an order on 1-8-1987 holding that the Certificate debtor were liable to pay the amount claimed by the Bank Consequent to the said order, the Certificate Officer directed the house of the petitioner mother alongwith structures to be auctioned on 3-8-1987 The grievance of the petitioner was that such an order was passed at 5 PM on 1st August, 1987, it being Saturday, and the auction was scheduled on 3rd August, 1987. It demonstrated the arbitrariness of the Certificates Officers. However the petitioner could move the Deputy Commissioner the appellate authority on 3rd August, 1987 itself, and the appellate authority was pleased to take up the matter for hearing on the same that and thereafter remanded the case to the Certificate Officer directing him to give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his case. The matter was, thereafter, taken up by the Certificate Officer on 13-8-87 when on the request of the petitioner counsel the matter was adjourned to 29-8-1987. The matter was, thereafter, taken up by the Certificate Officer on 13-8-87 when on the request of the petitioner counsel the matter was adjourned to 29-8-1987. But it appears from the order-sheet that the adjourned that was 20th August, 1987 and not 29th August, 1987 as was told to the petitioner counsel by the Certificate Officer. The petitioner however could now about the changed date of hearing. The counsel for the petitioner prayed for adjournment on 20th August, 1987, but the same was arbitrarily refused and an order was passed for the auction of the property on 24-9-1987. The petitioner has impugned this order passed by the Certificate Officer. In the writ application certain scandalous allegations have been made against the Certificate Officer particularly in paragraph 25 thereof. The counsel for the petitioner however, rightly submitted that he would not press those allegations before this Court. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf the State Bank of India (respondent no 4) and another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Certificate Officer (respondent no. 3). From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 the document annexed therewith it appears that the petitioner has suppressed material facts in his writ application or in any event has not stated complete facts. The facts as they appear from the writ application and the counted affidavits may be briefly stated thus. The Bank took step for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,13,068.50 Ps. due to it as on 22-11-1984 by initiating Certificate proceeding under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act. The Certificate Officer issued a notice to the petitioner on 22-11-1984. The said notice could not be served for many months and ultimately on 9-8-1985, the petitioner appeared and filed his objections under section 9 of the Acts. The matter was thereafter listed for hearing of the objection on several dates such as on 26-8-1985, 23-9-1985 7-10-1985 and 15-11-1985, but on all those dates no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The Certificate Officer was therefore compelled to issue distress warrant. In view of the issuance of distress warrants, the petitioner appeared on 19-12-1986 by order dated 11-5-1987, warrants of attachment and section order were issued by the Certificate Officer and the date of auction of the property of the petitioner mother was fixed as 30th June, 1987. The Certificate Officer was therefore compelled to issue distress warrant. In view of the issuance of distress warrants, the petitioner appeared on 19-12-1986 by order dated 11-5-1987, warrants of attachment and section order were issued by the Certificate Officer and the date of auction of the property of the petitioner mother was fixed as 30th June, 1987. After the passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an application on 1-6-1987 (Annexure A/1). In the aforesaid application, the petitioner stated that he was ready to repay the due on monthly instalment be is He Prayed that the warrant of arrest be recalled and the petitioner be allowed to repay the due on monthly instalment of Rs. 1,000.00 per month. It will, thus appear that by his aforesaid application the petitioner admitted his liability, but on account of his liability to pay the amount in one lumpsum, he prayed for payment of the amount the instalment. On 9-6-1987, the Certificate Officer passed an order after hearing the Certificate debtor and the Certificate Creditor, It was contended before him by the counsel for the petitioner/certificate debtor date a petitioner has been filed by the petitioner on 9-8-1985 under section 9 of the Act, and that application had not been disposed of. The Certificate Officer observed that a rejoinder had been filed to aforesaid petition and thereafter the petitioner had himself admitted his liability and had prayed for payment of the due in instalment. Since the petitioner had admitted the entire liability the objections did not have any meaning in view of the admission of liability. The order notices the fact that on various dated the petitioner had admitted his liability and had prayed for an order for payment of the dues in instalment. The Certificate Officer was of the view that the intentions of the petitioner were not fair and therefore he refused his application for payment of the dues in instalment. The proceeding had been pending since 22-11-1984. He further directed that the auction shall be held on 3-8-1987 at 10 A.M. The order refer to the earlier order where by the date of auction was fixed as 30th June 1987. Obviously, therefore, the order for the auction was the property was maintain, but the date of the auction was shifted to 3rd August 1987. He further directed that the auction shall be held on 3-8-1987 at 10 A.M. The order refer to the earlier order where by the date of auction was fixed as 30th June 1987. Obviously, therefore, the order for the auction was the property was maintain, but the date of the auction was shifted to 3rd August 1987. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application on 20th June, 1987 for recall of the order dated 9-6-1987 Since he could not get any results he deposit a sum of Rs. 24,000.00 on 30th June 1987. He thereafter offered to deposit Rs. 26,000.00 on 23rd July, 1987. Thereafter he actual deposits were made in two instalments by 29th July. On that date (29-7-87) the petitioner filed an application stating that he had deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000,00 and the balance may be deposit in instalment of Rs. 5,000.00 each. In reply to this application the Bank submitted its written reply on 30th July, 1987, that it had no objection to the Certificate Officer fixing suitable instalment so that the amount should be repaid within a few months. As on 31st July, 1987 the Principal amount due to the Bank was Rs. 1,13,074.50 P, and together with interest it amounted to Rs. 1,84,155.15 P. An instalment of Rs. 5000.00 per month would have taken several year for the amount to be repaid, were as the Bank was keen that instalment may be so fixed that the entire amount should be repaid within a few months. Having regard to these facts, by order dated 1-8-1987 the Certificate Officer rejected the prayed for payment of the balance amount instalments, but direct that if the petitioner deposited 50% of the amount by 3-8-1987 there shall be stay of the auction which was to be held on that date, i.e. 3-8-1987. Against the order, the petitioner approached the appellate authority namely the Deputy Commissioner who by his order dated 3-8-1987 remanded the matter to the Certificate Officer and directed him to proceed in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. After remand the case was taken up for hearing on 14-8-1987, but the counsel for the petitioner prayed for time. The matter was then directed to be heard on 20th August 1987. On the date again a prayer was made for adjournment. 4. After remand the case was taken up for hearing on 14-8-1987, but the counsel for the petitioner prayed for time. The matter was then directed to be heard on 20th August 1987. On the date again a prayer was made for adjournment. The Certificate Officer rejected the prayer foe adjournment and directed auction of the immovable property of the Certificate Debtor on 24-9-1987. 5. A preliminary objection was raised as to be maintainability of the instant writ application. It was submitted on behalf the respondents that since the party aggrieved has not approached this court the petitioner was not entitle to any relief. The property sought to be auctioned belongs to the mother of the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain a writ application on her behalf. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from the fact that in regard to properties sought to the auctioned in satisfaction of debt owed by the petitioner, his mother has also preferred a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1335 of 1987 (R) which has been kept pending till the disposal of this application. In that view of the matter, it was submitted that whatever be the result of this writ application, in the pending writ application some orders may be passed. In that view of the matter, I do not consider it proper to reject this application on the technical ground of maintainability particularly, in view of the pendency of the writ application filed by mother of the petitioner being C.W.J.C. No. 1335 of 1987 (R). 6. In the background of the facts, I may new refer to the submission advance before me by the counsel for the petitioner. It was first submitted that the execution of the certificate was illegal and without jurisdiction as the matter was not heard in accordance with the mandatory requirement of sections 10 and 14 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, Section 10 of the Act, Provides that the Certificate Officer shall hear the petition take evidence if necessary, and determine whether the Certificate Debtors is liable for the whole or any part of the amount for which the Certificate was signed and may set aside modify or very the Certificate accordingly. The petition referred to in section 10 of the Act, is the petition required to be filed under section 9 of the Act, by the certificate Debtor denying his liability in whole or in part. The section provides that no step in execution of the Certificate shall be taken until such petition under section 9 of the Act, has been heard and determined. 7. Is it not in dispute that on 9-8-1935, the petitioner had filed a petition under section 9 of the Act, denying his liability, but thereafter he made himself scare and appeared before Certificate only after distress warrant were issued. On 11-5-1987, a warrant of attachment and an auction order was issues fixing 30th June 1987 as the date of auction. At this stage, the petitioner prayed for stay of the auction and in that application he admitted his entire liability, but prayed that suitable instalments may be fixed for payment of the entire dues. This application is Annexure A-1 and is dated 1-6-1987. It, therefore, appears that the petitioner admitted his liability even though he had entire filed a petitioner under section 9 of the Act, denying his liability. In these circumstance, an order (Annexure-A) was passed by the Certificate Officer on 9-6-1987. By the aforesaid order the Certificate Officer held that the petitioner filed under section 9 of the Act, by the petitioner had no meaning since the petitioner had therefore admitted his liability. The order stated that by requesting for grant of suitable instalments for payment of the dues, and by stating that he was ready and willing to repay the dues, the petitioner had submitted his liability. The petitioner under section 9 of the Act, had, therefore, no significance in view of the admission of liability by the petitioner. So dying, the Certificate Officer had disposed of the aforesaid application under section 9 of the Act, by his order dated 9-6-1987. It is apparent from the application of the petitioner (Annexure A-1) dated 1-6-1987 that he had admitted the entire liability even though he had earlier filed a petitioner under section 9 of the Act, denying his liability. In there circumstance the Certificate Officer was right in holding that there was no question of hearing and determining the petitioner under section 9 of the Act. The petitioner had waived his writ to press his objection by admitted the liability. In there circumstance the Certificate Officer was right in holding that there was no question of hearing and determining the petitioner under section 9 of the Act. The petitioner had waived his writ to press his objection by admitted the liability. In any event, by the aforesaid order dated 9-6-1987, the petitioner must be deemed to have been disposed of. I therefore, fixed no merit in the first submission urgent on behalf of the petitioner. 8. It was then submitted that the impugned order passed by the Certificate Officer was arbitrary and malafied. Firstly inspite of the Bank having no objection to the offer to the petitioner to pay the amount due in instalments, the Certificate Officer did not pass an appropriate order fixing the instalments, and instead order for the auction of the immovable property of the guarantor. Secondly the order for the auction sale of immovable property was against Board of Revenue’s Instruction No. 36. It is not correct to state that the Bank had no objection to the offer of the petitioner to pay the amount in instalment of Rs. 5,000.00 each. As on 31-7-1987 a sum of Rs. 1,84,155.15 p. was due. The petitioner had offered to pay the amount in instalments of Rs. 5,000.00 (per month). The Bank did not oppose the grant of instalments but insisted that the instalments should be such that the entire amount may be paid of within a view months. It, therefore appears that the Bank did not agree to the proposal of the petitioner to pay the amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 5,000.00. The Bank was insisting upon the amount being paid in a few months and not in a few years. I find that deposit this the Certificate Officer granted time to the petitioner to pay 50% of the dues by 3-8-1987 and directed that if that was done, the auction shall remain stayed. I find nothing wrong in the order of the Certificate Officer dated 1-8-1987. Moreover, since that order was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, that has no significance. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on two dated and on both dates the petitioner prayed for adjournment. By the impugned order dated 20th August, 1987, the Certificate Officer refused the prayed for adjournment and rightly so since the matter was pending since the year 1984. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on two dated and on both dates the petitioner prayed for adjournment. By the impugned order dated 20th August, 1987, the Certificate Officer refused the prayed for adjournment and rightly so since the matter was pending since the year 1984. It is this order which is impugned in the writ application and not the order dated 1-8-1987. The second limb of the submission namely that the order for the sale of immovable property was contrary to instruction no 36 of the Board of Revenue, must also be rejected. Apart from the fact that the aforesaid instruction is only a guideline it only point out that auction sale should be ordered in the last resort and the Certificate Debtors must be offers every reasonable opportunity of saving hid property. In the instant case, I find that the matter has been pending since the year 1984. The petitioner has successfully delayed the proceeding. He had many opportunity to repay the entire amount, but obviously, he did not entertain any serious intention of doing so. In these circumstances, and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner absented himself for the proceeding after remand, the certificate officer was fully justified in passing the impugned order dated 20th August, 1987. 9. The third submission urged on behalf of the petitioner was that the impugned order was illegal because the agreement granting Case Credit Limit was not subsisting on the date on which the certificate was filed. There is no justification for the plea. The Bank has already filed before the certificate Officer the letter executed by the petitioner and his guarantor dated 10-10-1983 reviving the said agreement for a further period. In view of this document, the Certificate Officer was justified in proceeding with the matter in accordance with law. 10. Having regard to all fact and circumstance of the case, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner owed to the Bank a huge sum which he filed to repay. The Bank was compelled to initiate Certificate Proceeding against him. The petitioner initially denied the liability and filed a petition under section 9 of a Act, but letter he admitted his liability and prayed that he may be granted suitable instalments for repayment of the entire sum due while it is that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. The Bank was compelled to initiate Certificate Proceeding against him. The petitioner initially denied the liability and filed a petition under section 9 of a Act, but letter he admitted his liability and prayed that he may be granted suitable instalments for repayment of the entire sum due while it is that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 in three instalments, the amount outstanding against him is still a huge amount. The impugned order was passed by the Certificate Officer when he found that the petitioner was not attending the proceeding. In these circumstance, I find no reason to quash the impugned order and the Certificate Proceeding. I find no merit in the submission urged before me on behalf of the petitioner. This writ application is, therefore, dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs. While the matter was being heard, I granted several opportunities to the petitioner and the Bank of discuss the matter and to come to a reasonable settlement, if possible. The parties reported that they had filed to reach any settlement. Application dismissed.