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 petitioner's mother, the guarantor for realisation of an amount of Rs. 1,84,155.15P. payable to the Certificate Creditor, namely the State Bank of India (Respondent-4) in Certificate Case No. 87(M)/1984-85. The petitioner has also prayed 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 Industry having its factory at Raj Guru Compound, Lake Road, Ranchi. The petitioner was sanctioned a Cash Credit limit by the State Bank of India, Kokar Branch, Ranchi to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000.00. This facility was extended to the petitioner upon the petitioner’s 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 his 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 there 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 Cash 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 surprised 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. 2,13,008.95 Ps. The petitioner filed his objections under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act on 9.8.1985 and denied his liability to pay the alleged dues. 2,13,008.95 Ps. The petitioner filed his objections under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act on 9.8.1985 and denied his liability to pay the alleged dues. According to the petitioner, his objections were never heard, nor was any evidence recorded in accordance with section to of the Act. The petitioner, however, met the officials of the Bank and it was mutually 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.l987 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 instalment having been paid on 28.7.1987. Despite the payment of this amount, the Certificate Officer refused to stay the auction sale of the house of the petitioner's mother who was the guarantor for the loan. This was despite the fact that the Bank filed 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 surmises and conjectures passed an order on 1.8.1987 holding that the Certificate debtors were liable to pay the amount claimed by the Bank. Consequent to the said order, the Certificate Officer directed the house of the petitioner's mother along with structures to be auctioned on 3.8.1987. The grievance of the petitioner was that such an order was passed at 5 P.M. on 1st August, 1987, it being Saturday, and the auction was scheduled on 3rd August, 1987. It demonstrated the arbitrariness of the Certificate Officer. 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 date 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's counsel, the matter was adjourned to 29.8.1987. But it appears from the order-sheet that the adjourned date was 20th August, 1987 and not 29th August, 1987 as was told to the petitioner's counsel by the Certificate Officer. The matter was, thereafter taken up by the Certificate Officer on 13.8.87 when on the request of the petitioner's counsel, the matter was adjourned to 29.8.1987. But it appears from the order-sheet that the adjourned date was 20th August, 1987 and not 29th August, 1987 as was told to the petitioner's counsel by the Certificate Officer. The petitioner, however, could know 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 of 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 affidavits filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 and the documents 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 counter affidavits may be briefly stated thus. The Bank took steps for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,13,068.50 Ps. due to it as on 22.11.1964 by initiating certificate proceeding under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands 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 Act. The matter was, thereafter, listed for hearing of the objections on several dates, such as on 26.8.1985, 23.9.1985, 7.10.1985 and 15.11.1985, but on all those dates none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The Certificate Officer was, therefore, compelled to issue distress warrants. 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 auction order were issued by the Certificate Officer and the date of auction of the property of the petitioner's mother was fixed as 30th June, 1987. The Certificate Officer was, therefore, compelled to issue distress warrants. 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 auction order were issued by the Certificate Officer and the date of auction of the property of the petitioner's 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 dues on monthly instalment basis. He prayed that the warrant of arrest be recalled and the petitioner be allowed to repay the dues 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 inability to pay the amount in one lumpsum, he prayed for payment of the amount in instalments. 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 that a petition 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 the aforesaid petition and thereafter the petitioner had himself admitted his liability and had prayed for payment of the dues in instalments. 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 dates the petitioner had admitted his liability and had prayed for an order for payment of the dues in instalments. 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 instalments. 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 refers to the earlier order whereby the date of auction was fixed as 30th June, 1987. Obviously, therefore, the order for the auction of the property was maintained, 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. Obviously, therefore, the order for the auction of the property was maintained, 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 result, he deposited 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, the actual deposits were made in two instalments by 29th July, 1987. On that date (29.7.87) the petitioner filed an, application stating that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and the balance may be deposited in instalments 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 filing suitable instalments so that the amount should be repaid within a few months. As on 31st July, 19157 the Principal amount due to the Bank was Rs. 1,13,074.50P, and together with interest it amounted to Rs. l,84,155.15P. An instalment of Rs. 5,00,000 per month would have taken several years for the amount to be repaid, whereas the Bank was keen that instalments 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 prayer for payment of the balance amount in instalments, but directed 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 this 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 that date again a prayer was made for adjournment. The Certificate Officer rejected the prayer for adjournment and directed auction of the immovable property of the Certificate Debtor on 24.9.1987. 5. A preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the instant writ application. The matter was then directed to be heard on 20th August, 1987. On that date again a prayer was made for adjournment. The Certificate Officer rejected the prayer for adjournment and directed auction of the immovable property of the Certificate Debtor on 24.9.1987. 5. A preliminary objection was raised as to the maintainability of the instant writ application. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that since the party aggrieved has not approached this court, the petitioner was not entitled 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 be auctioned in satisfaction of debt owed by the petitioner, his mother has also preferred a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1335/87 (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 the mother of the petitioner being C.W.J.C. No. 1335 of 1987(R). 6. In the background of the facts, I may now refer to the submission advanced 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 requirements of sections 10 and 14 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act. Section 10 of the Act provides that Certificate Officer shall hear the petition, take evidence if necessary, and determine whether the Certificate Debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount for which the certificate was signed, and may set aside, modify or vary 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 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 steps in execution of the certificate shall be taken until such petition under section 9 of the Act has been heard and determined. 7. It is not in dispute that on 9.8.1985, the petitioner had filed a petition under section 9 of the Act denying his liability, but thereafter, he made himself scarce and appeared before Certificate Officer only after distress warrants were issued. On 11.5.1987, a warrant of attachment and an auction order was issued 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 earlier filed a petition under section 9 of the Act denying his liability. In these circumstances, an order (Annexure-A) was passed by the Certificate Officer on 9.6.1987. By the aforesaid order, the Certificate Officer held that the petition filed under section-9 of the Act by the petitioner had no meaning since the petitioner had thereafter admitted his liability. The order states 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 admitted his liability. The petition under section 9 of the Act had, therefore, no significance in view of the admission of liability by the petitioner. So saying, 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 petition under section 9 of the Act denying his liability. In these circumstances the Certificate Officer was right in holding that there was no question of hearing and determining the petition under section 9 of the Act. The petitioner had waived his right to press his objection by admitting the liability. In these circumstances the Certificate Officer was right in holding that there was no question of hearing and determining the petition under section 9 of the Act. The petitioner had waived his right to press his objection by admitting the liability. In any event, by the aforesaid order dated 9-6-1987, the petition must be deemed to have been disposed of. I, therefore, find no merit in the first submission urged on behalf of the petitioner. 8. It was then submitted that the impugned order passed by the Certificate Officer was arbitrary and mala fide. Firstly, inspite of the Bank having no objection to the offer of the petitioner to pay the amount due in instalments, the Certificate Officer did not pass an appropriate order fixing the instalments, and instead ordered 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 due in instalments 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 instalment but insisted that the instalments should be such that the entire amount may be paid off within a few 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 despite 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 dates and on both dates, the petitioner prayed for adjournment. By the impugned order dated 20th August, 1987, the Certificate Officer refused the prayer for adjournment, and rightly so since the matter was pending since the year 1984. Thereafter, the matter was listed for hearing on two dates and on both dates, the petitioner prayed for adjournment. By the impugned order dated 20th August, 1987, the Certificate Officer refused the prayer 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 points out that auction sale should be ordered in the last resort and the Certificate Debtor must be offered every reasonable opportunity of saving his 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, 1981. 9. The third submission urged on behalf of the petitioner was that the impugned order was illegal because the agreement granting Cash Credit Limit was not subsisting on the date on which case before the Certificate Officer was filed. There is no justification for this 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 the facts and circumstances of the case, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner owed to the Bank a huge sum which he failed 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 the Act, but later he admitted his liability and prayed that he may be granted suitable instalments for repayment of the entire sum. While it is true 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 the Act, but later he admitted his liability and prayed that he may be granted suitable instalments for repayment of the entire sum. While it is true 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 circumstances, I find no reason to quash the impugned order and the certificate proceeding. I find no merit in the submissions 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 to discuss the matter and to come to a reasonable settlement, if possible. The parties reported that they had failed to reach any settlement.