JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner could have reason for being hurt in the manner in which the Certificate Officer has tried to enforce the law against him. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was only because of his civil detention and arrest that he had to pay the amount and earn his freedom. 2. Origin of the present certificate case was an audit objection regarding non payment of trade tax for sale of tractors by a manufacturer known as Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Based on the audit objection the District Transport Officer filed requisition in the name of Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Mirchaibari, Katihar. Objection of the petitioner was that he is not Mahindra & Mahindra. He is only a dealer of Mahindra Tractor and, therefore, the requisition could not be enforced against him. Though the petitioner appeared on his own when he came to know of the proceeding and contested by filing objection but all those aspects were brushed aside and co-ercive method adopted and the petitioner was forced to deposit a sum of Rs.37,520/-. 3. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that there could be a mis-description of the party because of the fact that the petitioner was a dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra. So instead of firms name, manufacturers name was recorded but it is also a fact that liability to pay trade tax on sale of tractors was on the firm and the petitioner firm was obliged to make such payments of trade tax and that is the reason why the Certificate Officer after taking note of the objection and appearance of the petitioner has recorded in his ordersheet that liability is of the firm and not the Company. 4. The factual and ground reality could be so but a certificate proceeding has to proceed strictly in accordance with the procedure substantively laid down under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act. The decisions and opinions of this Court in various litigations are very clear that the certificate must indicate the liability of a person responsible, the principle amount, interest thereto and the cost. This must be duly verified, signed and dated. The decisions and opinions of this Court in various litigations are very clear that the certificate must indicate the liability of a person responsible, the principle amount, interest thereto and the cost. This must be duly verified, signed and dated. If the requisition or the notice suffers from any mistake, then it is no certificate in the eye of law and there are instances where the Courts have quashed proceedings conducted or carried on with the infirmities pointed out. 5. There could be a mis-description of the party as noted in the earlier part of the order but for that the requisitioning authority could have taken back the earlier requisition, corrected the same and re-submitted for the Certificate Officer to proceed. Obviously, this has not been done and the Certificate Officer has gone ahead and enforced the requisition which was not drawn up against the petitioner as is not disputed. 6. The Certificate Officer has statutory duty to perform under a special law and it is not for him to dispense quazi justice. Law has to be followed in letter and spirit in which the legislature has legislated. The innovation followed by the Certificate Officer, obviously, is in breach of law. 7. In view of the same despite deposit of money by the petitioner by way of requisition, the same is quashed and direction is issued to refund the money to the petitioner forthwith. This writ application is allowed as the Certificate proceeding is de hors the law.