JUDGEMENT 1. The present case discloses a very sorrow state of affairs. On 24.10.2007, a certificate proceeding was registered being Certificate Case No. 98 of 2007-08 (Mines) by the Certificate Officer, Siwan for alleged recovery of about Rs. 61,471/- from the petitioner allegedly due for the brick year 2006-07 which has just ended. Notices were issued to the petitioner as would appear from the order-sheet. On 7.3.2008, on notice being served, petitioner appeared and filed petition denying liability. The Certificate Officer directed the objection petition (petition denying liability) to be sent to the Assistant Mining Officer, Siwan who had to file the certificate with his para-wise comments. Thereafter it is clear that the proceeding kept pending and was adjourned from day to day awaiting comments from the Requisitioning Officer i.e. the Assistant Mining Officer. The entire order-sheet shows that up to 12.12.2008 the report as sought for from the Mining Department was not made available and the petitioner was consistently present on all days. All of a sudden the matter is then taken up on 24.1.2009. By 14.7.2009 wherein it is stated that warrant has not been received as such fresh warrants be issued against the petitioner. 2. Three things appear from this order-sheet. Firstly that the case awaiting report from the Mining Department was to be placed on 24.1.2009, it was not so placed and it surfaced only on 14.7.2009. Secondly though petitioners objections (petition denying liability) was still pending and had not been adjudicated because of want of comments from the Mining Department itself for over three years and thirdly that there was no order whatsoever passed directing the issuance of warrant of arrest, still it is recorded that execution of warrant of arrest is not reported and as such fresh warrant be issued. 3. This Court is surprised in the manner in which these proceedings have been conducted. Firstly I would direct the Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Siwan to ensure that the person who has passed these orders as a Certificate Officer be forthwith removed and never entrusted with such public statutory functions for he is too irresponsible and cannot be entrusted with protection of citizens rights. 4. Now coming to the merits of this case. It is obvious that the petitioner has duly filed his petition denying liability. 4. Now coming to the merits of this case. It is obvious that the petitioner has duly filed his petition denying liability. Comments were called from the Assistant Mining Officer and for the last two and half years the Mining Department is in deep slumber. Price to be paid is by the petitioner who without any reason has to face warrant of arrest. I may also point out here that this Court has repeatedly held that for enforcement of civil dues in a certificate proceeding warrant of arrest cannot be issued. Warrant of arrest can only be issued in specified contingency only. I may only refer to two judgments of this Court i.e. Dasharath Sharma vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2005(3) PLJR 687 and Md. Abu Hasnain vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. since reported in 2007(1) PLJR 797 . 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, there being no justification for issuance of warrant of arrest and that to in such a casual manner. I, therefore set aside the order issuing warrant of arrest and set aside the warrant issued in the certificate proceedings as aforesaid against the petitioner and direct the Certificate Officer to first adjudicate upon the liability and pass a speaking order in that regard and then proceed in accordance with law. 6. The writ application with the aforesaid observation and direction is allowed.