Judgment B.N.Agrawal and N.Roy JJ. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed for giving a direction to the respondents for unsealing the office premises of the petitioner and release of the articles belonging to the petitioner lying in its office. Further prayer has been made for release of the bus bearing registration No. BPN 8422 which has been seized. 3. It is said that the petitioner has not received any notice of the certificate proceeding other than the notices enumerated in annexures 1 series.Yesterday when the case was heard, we directed learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, to obtain instruction from the District Certificate Officer as to under what circumstance petitioners office premises has been sealed and the articles kept therein have been seized. We also directed the learned Government Advocate to obtain instruction as to whether any notice has been given to the petitioner in the certificate proceeding or not. Pursuant to our direction, the office premises of the petitioner has been unsealed yesterday itself and the articles lying therein have been released. In view of this, it is not necessary for us to pass any further order in relation to this. But, we may, however, observe that under the provision of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) there is no provision under which for non-payment of certificate dues business premises or house of a citizen can be sealed. This is wholly unknown to law. It is expected that in future no such action will be taken by the certificate officer against any citizen much less against the petitioner. 4. Turning now to the question of notice on behalf of the State it has been stated that action has been taken by the certificate officer in connection with notices in the three certificate proceedings bearing Certificate Case Nos. 21 of 1992-93, 22 of 1992-93 and 23 of 1992-93 and it has been stated that in all these proceedings notices under Sec. 7 of the Act were served upon the petitioner, which is a partnership firm, by way of refusal. Original records and the notices bearing service returns have been produced in Court for our perusal. The serving peon has mentioned in his report that he went to the certificate debtor, but the certificate debtor refused to accept the notice. 5. Original records and the notices bearing service returns have been produced in Court for our perusal. The serving peon has mentioned in his report that he went to the certificate debtor, but the certificate debtor refused to accept the notice. 5. Certificate debtor is, undisputedly, a partnership firm. It is stated that there is no person alive like Mr. R.K. Bidhia and the service return shows that the notice has been served upon one R.K. Budhia and Company and not upon any of the partners of the petitioner, which is a partnership firm. This shows that the notices in the aforesaid three proceedings under Sec. 7 of the Act were not properly served upon the petitioner, therefore, the action of seizure of the bus in question was not justified. 6. To save time, we direct Mr.Government Advocate to make over photostat copies of notices under Sec. 7 of the Act along with the photosta copies of the requisitions in relation to all the certificate proceedings by tomorrow to Mr. S.N. Lal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and on the day it is so made over, the notices under Sec. 7 of the Act shall be deemed to have been served upon the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter, if it so likes, may file objection under Sec. 9 of the Act within the time required under law. After objections are filed in the aforesaid three proceedings the certificate officer shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. Only after disposal objection further action will be taken against the petitioner. 7. It is made clear that if no objection is filed then thereafter the certicate officer shall dispose of the aforesaid certificate proceedings in accordance with law. So far vehicle in question is concerned, the same must be released to the petitioner forthwith. Mr. S.N. Lal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, after consulting his client, Mr. Hemandra Kumar Budhia who is present in Court, says that he undertakes not to dispose of the vehicle in question so long the aforesaid certificate proceedings remain pending. 8. Let a copy of this order be made over to learned Government Advocate. 9. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application is disposed of.