Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 845 (PAT)

Surendra Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-27

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing the entire certificate proceeding of District Certificate Case no. 2 of 2001 pending in the court of Addl. Collec-tor-cum-Sr. District Certificate Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah for recovery of Rs. 94,250/-. 3. Certificate case has been proceeded for recovery of Rs. 94,250/- which is said to be rent collected by the petitioner from Ramnagar Daily Market. For settlement of Ramnagar Daily Market a bid was held in presence of Collector, West Champaran Bettiah. Petitioner being the highest bidder for settlement of 2000-2001, he deposited Rs. 40,000/- and he made a request that rest of the money will be deposited in instalments. Thereafter the respondent did not execute the agreement in favour of the petitioner. No parwana was issued in his favour as such petitioners case is that he never collected any rent from the daily market in spite of the settlement made in his favour. Petitioner made several representation to the authorities concerned for executing the agreement in his favour for issuance of parwana or for refund of money which was deposited by him including the earnest . money, but no response from the side of the authorities. Finally Certificate case no. 2 of 2001 was initiated against the petitioner for realisation of the rent supposed to have been collected by the petitioner on account of settlement of Ramnagar Daily market. Petitioner filed his objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, but after expiry of 30 days which is the statutory time for filing objection under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act. In his objection the petitioner also claimed for not submitting his show cause within the statutory period. In spite of this fact objection filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Certificate Officer and warrant of arrest has been issued against him. In his ojection under Sectibn 9 of the P.D.R. Act he raised objection regarding the maintainability of the certificate proceeding. Since the objection filed by the petitioner was not considered, he having left with no option has filed this writ application. 4. In the counter affidavit there is averment that no agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner on account of settlement or any Parwana was issued in his favour. Since the objection filed by the petitioner was not considered, he having left with no option has filed this writ application. 4. In the counter affidavit there is averment that no agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner on account of settlement or any Parwana was issued in his favour. It has also been explained that in case of non execution of agreement and non issuance of Parwana why the certificate proceeding has been initiated for realisation of rent which is proposed to have been collected by him. 5. In the given circumstances the order dated 18.2.2002 passed by the Additional Collector-cum-Sr. District Certificate Officer, West Champaran Bettiah in Certificate case no. 2 of 2001 is quashed. This application is allowed. The Certificate Officer is directed to entertain objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act and proceed in the matter in accordance with law.