Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order on C.W.J.C. No. 9804 of 1994 Ashok Kumar Bajaj V/s. State of Bihar and others. 2. The learned Judge had dismissed the petition upholding the order of the Commissioner that the certificate proceedings were to continue and that the petitioner-appellant was under a continued direction (as had been made by the Commissioner) that 40% of the amount under certificate proceedings be deposited so that the merits could be debated in the revision. 3. The order of the Commissioner against which the petitioner-appellant filed the writ petition is a short one and is reproduced below : "21-9-1994. Records, comments and S.R. received. On 4-5-1993 petitioner was directed to deposit 40% of certificate amount. Petitioner files time petition. O.P. files Hazri. It has been stated by the appellant that the conducting lawyer is not available and hence his junior pressed for time which the O.P.s lawyer opposed strongly. He further stated that the order dt. 4-5-1993 with respect to deposit 40% of certificate amount has not been deposited despite lapse of a year. This shows that scant respect for the order of this Court. Hence, the revision-petition is rejected." 4. Actually the issue begins during the year 1986-87. There were trading transactions between the Food Corporation of India and the State of Bihar and a rice milling establishment known as Shree Durga Rice Mill. It is not understood why the petitioner-appellant came into the picture because there was a liability which the firm had undertaken to process the rice/paddy. All of it had not been accounted for. 5. Five authorities have examined the matter, the authority of initial instance, the appellate, the revision, the writ petition and the present letters patent appeal and the issue still continues. 6. What is relevant is that the petitioner-appellant was laying the foundations that the paddy which was delivered to the establishment known as Shree Durga Rice Mill, whatever wll be the reason, was not available. 6. What is relevant is that the petitioner-appellant was laying the foundations that the paddy which was delivered to the establishment known as Shree Durga Rice Mill, whatever wll be the reason, was not available. The contents of the petitioner-appellants letter are reproduced below : "We regret to inform you that in spite of our repeated letters and reminders to you for removing your stock of 147 bags of rice and the gunny bags stocked in our mill premises, you did not remove them with the result that the entire stock of stacked rice and gunny bags was submerged into 5 (five) feet deep water and that into its 2nd phase, it was under 6 (six) feet of water and the entire godown has collapsed. That in the circumstances, the entire thing is neither with us nor it is with you and has been shallowed by the circumstances completely beyond human control which was witnessed by local M.L.A. also besides the local officer and the people. This is for your information and writing off the claim after inspection (if you feel at all necessary)." 7. Clearly, the petitioner-appellant was looking for political interference from some member of the Legislative Assembly to wash off the entire thing. It is not understood why the petitioner-appellant needed a M.L.A. to witness the stocks within his establishment. 8. The issue plainly remains whether the certificate action for the recovery of any amount under the recovery proceedings first needs to be determined and thereafter requirement of the petitioner-appellant to pay it. When the proceedings were initiated on a revision which had been filed by the petitioner-appellant (the Court will assume that he was acting as an agent, whether proprietor or partner, of the establishment or firm known as Shree Durga Rice Mill), the lawyers of the petitioner-appellant did not appear. Already, the Commissioner had passed an order on 21/09/1994 while the revision was being filed that 40% of the amount be deposited under the provision of S. 62 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. 9. The petitioner-appellant found it more convenient to have his case dismissed for default because he was probably under the impression that the requirement of making the 40% deposit would also go with it. Now when the recovery proceedings were initiated he filed a writ petition. 9. The petitioner-appellant found it more convenient to have his case dismissed for default because he was probably under the impression that the requirement of making the 40% deposit would also go with it. Now when the recovery proceedings were initiated he filed a writ petition. All what has happened is that the learned Judge on the writ petition has permitted that the petitioner may have his revision revived and the matter be considered on merits provided that the requirement in the order of the Commissioner dated 21/09/1994 to deposit 40% of the amount under the certificate action will have to be adhered to. 10. Not noticed in the order which has been impugned, the petitioner-appellant was bound by a covenant as a contract in which if remedies were to be undertaken whether by arbitration or a suit to enforce the result, it was a remedy which has been provided to both the parties. The petitioner had not pointed this out in the writ petition nor has denied it is answer to counter-affidavit, as the rejoinder affidavit has not been filed. 11. There is no merit in this appeal. 12. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.