JUDGMENT I.A. Nos. 1470/13, 1469/13, 1466/13 & 1468/13 Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners in these cases have challenged the order dated 29th October 2010 passed by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case Nos. 16/2009-10, 7/2009-10, 11/2009-10 and 08/2009-10 in each individual cases. 3. The petitioners' claim that the impugned orders have been passed in different certificate proceedings which have been initiated on the basis of an inspection done to detect illegal quarrying of stone. These petitioners are neither lessee nor have indulged in any illegal mining of stone from the respective areas in relation to which they have been saddled with the liability to pay penalty in the nature of fine under the provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the instant writ applications, coercive steps in the nature of distress warrant for attachment of the property of the individual petitioners were initiated which have been impugned through interlocutory applications filed in each individual cases. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in January 2011, the petitioners have preferred individual review petitions before the Certificate Officer under section 63 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, now adopted by the State of Jharkhand, for recall of the impugned orders which is pending before the Certificate Officer. It is submitted that the impugned coercive steps have been taken during the pendency of the writ applications, though review petitions have not been decided. Counsel for the petitioners submits further that the petitioners have already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer for review of the impugned orders and the Certificate Officer may be directed to decide the individual review petitions expeditiously and only depending upon the outcome of the individual review petitions, any consequential action may be taken against them. 5. Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is their stand that in respect of plots which were not allotted by way of any lease to these petitioners and 8 other persons, on complaints, an inspection was conducted and illegal quarrying of stone was found to be done from the respective area falling in the district of Hazaribagh. In those circumstances, invoking the relevant provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, certificate proceedings were initiated against each individual petitioners and others before the competent Certificate Officer in respective certificate cases. In those circumstances, invoking the relevant provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, certificate proceedings were initiated against each individual petitioners and others before the competent Certificate Officer in respective certificate cases. It is submitted that the petitioners though had preferred objection under section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, but they did not pursue the same and final orders have been passed for realization of the dues which the petitioners are failing to pay, though there is no interim order of this court. Counsel for the respondents however is not in a position to dispute that the petitioners have preferred review petitions individually before the Certificate Officer which is still pending for final adjudication. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. From the facts which have been stated herein-above, it is clear that the petitioners have been subjected to certificate proceedings for realization of the penalty / fine invoking the provisions of Rules of 2004 on the basis of an inspection carried out by the District Mining Officer in Hazaribagh and final orders have been passed in the individual certificate cases which are under challenge in the present writ applications. However, it is not in dispute that review petitions have been preferred by each of these petitioners before the Certificate Officer for recall / review of the order impugned on the grounds taken in the said petitions. The review petitions have not yet been decided either way. In these circumstances, in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice, petitioners are allowed to pursue their respective review petitions pending before the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh. The Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh is directed to decide the review petitions within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to cooperate in the certificate proceedings, the Certificate Officer shall decide the review applications in ex-parte manner, in accordance with law. Any consequential action for recovery of the alleged dues would be taken after disposal of the individual review petitions. These writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All the interlocutory applications are also disposed of.