Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 389 (JHR)

Haroon Rashid v. State Of Jharkhand

2003-03-26

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2003
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 1st November, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Certificate Appeal No. 44/2002-03, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner was directed to deposit 40% of the certificate amount, failing which the appeal was ordered to be dismissed. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate authority cannot ask the petitioner to deposit 40% of the certificate amount, final decision having not given by the Certificate Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case as pleaded suggest that a Certificate Case No. 55 (RT)/2000-01 was initiated on the requisition of the District Transport Officer, Jamshedpur for recovery of a sum of Rs. 74,958/- from the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and filed objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. During the pendency of the said certificate proceeding, the petitioner moved before this Court in CWJC No. 1299 of 2001, wherein a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that he was ready to deposit the entire arrears of tax as well as additional tax, including the current road tax in instalment with respect to vehicles in question, if remission for certain period was granted. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 4th April, 2001 with liberty to petitioner to file a petition for remission of road tax which was to be decided without being prejudiced to the order of the Court. The objection preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 of the PDR Act was rejected and a distress warrant was ordered to be issued on 3rd June, 2002. The petitioner preferred a Certificate Appeal No. 44 of 2002-03, wherein the impugned order was passed on 1st November, 2002. 4. The counsel for the petitioner relied on a Patna High Court decision in the ease of Birendra Kumar Mehta v. State of Bihar, reported in 1999 (1) BLJR 604 and submitted that a certificate debtor if disputes the certificate dues is not required to deposit 40% of the certificate amount. 5. The aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted as it is not applicable in the present case. 5. The aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted as it is not applicable in the present case. In the said case, the Patna High Court held that where the certificate debtor has disputed the certificate amount and the Certificate Officer has not determined the certificate dues, in such case, the certificate debtor is not required to make deposit as per the first proviso to Section 62 of the PDR Act. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has not disputed the certificate amount. He merely sought for remission from the transport authority as evident from this Courts order dated 4th April, 2001 in CWJC No. 1299 of 2001 (Annexure-2). The question of remission can be determined by a competent transport authority but not by the Certificate Officer. The Certificate Officer is only supposed to determine whether the certificate amount is correct or not taking into consideration the objection, if any, preferred by the certificate debtor. 7. In this case, the Certificate Officer finally determined the certificate amount while rejected the objection preferred by (he petitioner under Section 9 of the Act. In such case, the objection of petitioner having reached its finality, the certificate amount having finally determined, the petitioner is liable to pay 40% of the certificate amount as per first proviso to Section 62 of the PDR Act for determination of appeal on merit. 8. There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed.