ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Sinha learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5825 of 2001, Mr. S.B. Gadodia, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 5032 of 2001 and Mr. V.P. Singh learned counsel for the respondent Board in both the writ applications. 2. Since these two writ applications have arisen out of a common order and similar reliefs have been claimed, the same have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 3. In W.P. (C) No. 5032 of 2001, the petitioner Govind Prasad Kanudia has prayed for issuance of direction upon respondent No. 8 to take action on the report of respondent No. 9 and further to quash the order dated 12.9.2001 passed by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No. 7/98-99 whereby he has taken coercive steps against the petitioner and other certificate debtors for the recovery of the electricity dues. 4. In W.P. (C) No. 5825 of 2001. the petitioner Kashi Nath Kanudia has made the similar prayer for quashing the orders dated 28.8.2001, 12.9.2001 and 10.11.2001 passed by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No. 7/98-99 whereby he has directed to issue A/W and D/W against the petitioners and other certificate debtors for recovery of the electric dues. 5. In this way both the writ petitioners have claimed that they are not liable to pay the certificate dues and the entire certificate proceeding as also the order for issuance of distress warrant against them is illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. First of all, I will decide a very important issue with regard to maintainability of these two writ applications filed at the instance of these writ petitioners. The undisputed facts are that the firm, namely. M/s. Dhanbad Flour Mill, at one point of time, was held and possessed by Govind Prasad Kanudia (Kanudia brothers). They were running the said business in the name and style of M/s. Dhanbad Flour Mill. The electric connection was given in the premises of M/s. Dhanbad Flour Mill and an agreement to that effect was executed by and between Govind Prasad Kanudia and the respondent-Electricity Board. Govind Prasad Kanudia executed the agreement as managing partner of the said firm. They were running the said business in the name and style of M/s. Dhanbad Flour Mill. The electric connection was given in the premises of M/s. Dhanbad Flour Mill and an agreement to that effect was executed by and between Govind Prasad Kanudia and the respondent-Electricity Board. Govind Prasad Kanudia executed the agreement as managing partner of the said firm. Further case of the writ petitioners are that the business of M/s. Dhanbad Flour Mill and the property was leased out by Govind Prasad Kanudia to Kashi Nath Kanudia and the latter carried on the said business in the same name and style of M/s. Dhanbad Flour Mill. In 1981 a fresh agreement was executed by M/s. Dhanbad Flour Mill through one Laxman Mishra as Manager of the Firm with the respondent Board for increase of the contract demand. Some time in 1997 the electricity dues of the Board reached upto Rs. 14,63,113.50. The writ petitioner, namely Kashi Nath Kanudia challenged the impugned bill, particularly two AMG charges by filing CWJC No. 788 of 1997 (R). In the said writ application the writ petitioner, namely, Kashi Nath Kanudia agreed that in no case the Board will be entitled to claim more than a sum of Rs. 7,67.830. The petitioner further agreed to make payment of the dues in instalments. 7. When the electricity dues was not paid by any of the writ petitioners a certificate proceeding was initiated being Certificate Case No. 7/98-99. Both the writ petitioners filed their respective objections under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act. The Certificate Officer rejected the objection filed by both the petitioners and determined the liability under Section 10 of the said Act. The writ petitioner, namely, Kashi Nath Kanudia did not challenge the final order passed by the Certificate Officer and. therefore, the order became final as against him. 8. So far Govind Prasad Kanudia is concerned he challenged the said order by filing CWJC No. 3399 of 1999 (R). The said writ application was dismissed on 1.12.1999 with a direction to the petitioner to file appeal against the final order passed by the Certificate Officer. The petitioner Govind Prasad Kanudia, accordingly, filed certificate appeal and in that appeal he was directed to deposit 40 per cent of the certificate dues. The said writ application was dismissed on 1.12.1999 with a direction to the petitioner to file appeal against the final order passed by the Certificate Officer. The petitioner Govind Prasad Kanudia, accordingly, filed certificate appeal and in that appeal he was directed to deposit 40 per cent of the certificate dues. Govind Prasad Kanudia then challenged the said order by filing another writ petition being CWJC No. 2139 of 2000 (R). The said writ application was dismissed on 20.7.2000. The petitioner then filed LPA No. 297 of 2000 (R). The said Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed on 31.8.2000. The petitioner Govind Prasad Kanudia then preferred Civil Review No. 85 of 2000 for review of the order passed in CWJC No. 2139 of 2000 (R). The said review application was also dismissed. The said petitioner, however, did not deposit 40 per cent of the certificate dues in the appeal preferred by him and, therefore, the appeal stood dismissed. In this way the final order passed by the Certificate Officer under Section 10 of the said Act also attained finality as against him. 9. Now the question arises as to whether these two writ petitioners, against whom liability for payment of certificate dues has been determined by the Certificate Officer under Section 10 of the said Act and the said order having become final upto this Court and Letters Patent Court, can be allowed to again file these two applications challenging the subsequent orders passed by the Certificate Officer for recovery of the dues by issuing processes. I have no doubt in my mind and in my considered opinion these two writ applications are not maintainable and entertainable on this ground alone. I may reiterate again that the order passed by the Certificate Officer under Section 10 of the said Act having become final, the petitioners have no right to challenge the said order and reagitate the matter again by filing fresh writ applications. On this ground alone these two writ applications are wholly misconceived and are dismissed. 10. Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the prayers of the petitioner is that a direction be issued to the General Manager to pass order on the report submitted by the Superintending Engineer. In my opinion, since I have held that these two writ applications are not maintainable and entertainable. 10. Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the prayers of the petitioner is that a direction be issued to the General Manager to pass order on the report submitted by the Superintending Engineer. In my opinion, since I have held that these two writ applications are not maintainable and entertainable. 1 am not inclined to pass any further order in the matter. 11. Needless to say that the respondent-Board shall be entitled to recover the dues either by issuance of distress warrant, auction sale of the personal property of the partners or the assets of the firm or in any manner which is permissible under law.