JUDGMENT : Radha Mohan Prasad, J. In this writ petition the petitioners have assailed the validity of the entire certificate proceeding in Certificate Case No. 259 St. 74-75, 26-ST of 1964-65 initially started against their father Sarjug Prasad for realisation of Rs.25,600/- as Sales Tax dues of the State of Bihar. 2. It is contended by Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, that Sarjug Prasad was declared insolvent under the provisions of Insolvency Act, 1920 by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Patna in Pauper Case No.1 of 1964 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. As such, according to him, in view of the provisions contained in Section 29 of the said Act, this certificate proceeding pending against the debtor Sarjug Prasad cannot legally proceed for adjudication and is fit to be finally dropped. Mr. Verma, submitted that in any view of the matter the continuance of such a proceeding against the petitioners was not permissible in law unless the Certificate Officer would have given notice to them as required under Section 52 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') which was not complied. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State of Bihar and its officials submitted that section 29 of the Insolvency Act does not contemplate for dropping of the proceeding finally. It only contemplates that the court in such case should either stay the proceeding or allow it to continue on such terms as the court may impose. 4. I find substance in submission of the learned counsel for the State. No provision has been brought to my notice for finally dropping of the certificate proceeding after the certificate debtor is declared insolvent. Section 29 requires that any Court in which a suit or other proceeding is pending against a debtor shall, on proof that an ORDER :of adjudication has been made against him under the Insolvency Act, either stay the proceedings, or allow it to continue on such terms as Court may impose. Pursuant to the said provision the Certificate Officer stayed the further proceeding as is evident from the ORDER :dated 25.11.68 in which it is also mentioned that no action is necessary in this case till he hears from the requisition officer. Pursuant to the said provision the Certificate Officer stayed the further proceeding as is evident from the ORDER :dated 25.11.68 in which it is also mentioned that no action is necessary in this case till he hears from the requisition officer. Admittedly, the petitioners are sons of the original certificate doctor and as such they are successor in interest of the original certificate debtor after his death. As such the Certificate officer though was justified in proceeding with the certificate case but should have proceeded only after taking recourses to the provision contained in section 52 of the Act. 5. It has rightly been contended by the learned counsel for the State that there is no such averment that the petitioners were never served with any notice under section 52 of the Act but the entire ORDER :-sheet which have been annexed as Annexure-2 also does not show that notice under section 52 was ever issued to the petitioners. In fact, after the ORDER :dated 4.2.93 the certificate officer simply noticed the fact about the death of the original certificate debtor and straightway issued attachment ORDER :and later distress warrant against the petitioners which cannot be held to be legally justified. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Certificate Officer, Patna City to proceed further only after taking recourse to the provisions contained in section 52 of the Act, in accordance with law. However, the petitioners shall appear before him and file their objection taking all such pleas which are available to them along with a copy of this JUDGMENT :/ORDER :within three weeks. The Certificate Officer shall on consideration of pleas, if any, raised by the petitioners decide the matter in accordance with the law. This Court wishes to make it clear that any observation on merit in this ORDER :shall not come in the way of the petitioners from raising objections regarding maintainability of the certificate proceeding and the Certificate Officer shall decide it on the basis of the materials available on the record in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this JUDGMENT :/ORDER :.