Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 405 (PAT)

Deonarain Ram v. State of Bihar

2012-03-05

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2012
Anjana Prakash, J. – No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has sought quashing of the entire certificate proceeding being Yojna Certificate Case No. 3/90-91 of the Court of Certificate Officer as also for restraining the Respondents from taking any coercive steps for realization of the public demand of Rs. 45,821/-. 3. The history of the case is that while the petitioner was posted as Gram Sevak in Mehsi Block, the Block Development Officer Mehsi entrusted the petitioner with the execution of construction of School building at Bara Bishunpur and Matia by order dated dated 12.1.1985. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was given against the estimated cost of construction of Rs. 55,492/- for each of the schemes. Thereafter the scheme was changed where building materials were concerned and, therefore, the estimated cost for modified scheme escalated to Rs. 64,000/-. Against the said revised scheme a further sum of Rs. 29,750/- was given to the petitioner as advance. The petitioner thereafter gave a progress report on 6.7.1985 reporting that he has spent Rs. 32,000/- over one scheme and a sum of Rs. 27,000/- over the other. Subsequently, some dispute arose between the petitioner and a local person on account of which a police case was instituted. In retaliation another case was instituted against the petitioner for defalcation and misappropriation of the advance amount. The Respondent No. 2 i.e. Block Development Officer, Mehsi withheld the salary of the petitioner till the entire money was realized from him but the District Magistrate by order dated 3.3.1989 stayed the said order till the disposal of criminal case. After about a lapse of five years the Block Development Officer purportedly signed a certificate for Rs. 45,821/- on 16.8.1990 which was the subject matter of the present certificate proceeding. The petitioner filed objection petition on 30.7.1991 stating therein that the proceeding was without jurisdiction and a detailed account showing the expenditure of Rs. 61,160/- over the construction of the building whereas he had received only Rs. 59,000/- as advance. The objection was rejected on 30.7.1991 without deciding as to whether it was a public demand and that there was a violation of procedure of certificate. 4. 61,160/- over the construction of the building whereas he had received only Rs. 59,000/- as advance. The objection was rejected on 30.7.1991 without deciding as to whether it was a public demand and that there was a violation of procedure of certificate. 4. The stand of the petitioner is that the proceeding is completely without jurisdiction and as its recovery by suit had become time barred the money advanced for the schemes could not be legally realized as public demand since there was no agreement between the petitioner and the Block Development Officer that the money advanced could be realized as public demand. Further as per the First Information Report the allegation against the petitioner is that only a sum of Rs. 34,750/- was misappropriated whereas the proceeding has been initiated for recovery of Rs. 45,820/- which is an arbitrary figure. The copy of the certificate was not served on the petitioner as required under Section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act. 5. On the other hand, the counsel for the State submits that it was open to the petitioner to have filed an objection petition under Section 9 of the Act which the Certificate Officer was enjoined to hear under Section 10 of the Act. This not having been done the petitioner having rushed to the writ Court when an alternative remedy was available to him no relief could be granted under the circumstances. The further submission is that in fact the petitioner rushed to this Court was for the reason that he wanted to bypass the proviso of Section 60 (i) since he would have to pay 40% of the amount determined. Further under Sections 62 and 63 there are provisions of revision as well as of review. Even considering that the certificate proceeding was without jurisdiction the petitioner could have availed the remedies of suit as provided under Sections 43 and 44 (A & B). Under the circumstances, in his submission the application is fit to be dismissed. 6. Having gone through the records of the case, I find that there is no doubt that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner and, therefore, the matter being kept pending before this Court when a quicker resort to justice could have been had, I am not inclined to accede the prayer of the petitioner. 6. Having gone through the records of the case, I find that there is no doubt that an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner and, therefore, the matter being kept pending before this Court when a quicker resort to justice could have been had, I am not inclined to accede the prayer of the petitioner. In view of such, without entering into the merits of the case, the application is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedies in accordance with law, if he so desires.