Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1047 (JHR)

Suresh Prasad Mehta v. State of Jharkhand

2014-10-16

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Order Aggrieved by orders dated 21.09.2013 and 30.07.2014, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. It is submitted that challenging the original order dated 29.10.2010 in Certificate Case No. 16 of 20092010, the petitioner had earlier approached this court in W.P. (C) No. 3827 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 03.04.2013 directing the petitioner to file review petition before the Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh and the Certificate Officer was directed to decide the review petition within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Consequently vide order dated 21.09.2013, the review petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and vide order dated 30.07.2014, the petitioner was sent in civil prison. 3. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in “Dasharath Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.” reported in 2005 (3) PLJR 687 , the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that before the Certificate Officer neither a statement was made that the petitioner despite having sufficient property was trying to sell the property nor he was trying to conceal the same nor he has made untrue statement, still order dated 30.07.2014 has been passed by the Certificate Officer which cannot be sustained in law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand does not dispute this position in law however, he raises the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition in so far as, the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No. 16 of 2009-2010 is concerned. It is submitted that against the original order dated 29.10.2010 as well as the order dated 21.09.2013 passed in review application preferred by the petitioner, an appeal would lie and therefore, the petitioner may be directed to approach the appellate authority. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the original order dated 29.10.2010 as well as the order dated 21.09.2013 have been passed in utter disregard to the procedure prescribed under Section 7 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, the writ petition is maintainable. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in “Dasharath Sharma Vs. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in “Dasharath Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors” (supra) clearly indicates that in the absence of any statement made that the petitioner has been trying to conceal his property or he was trying to dispose of the property or he has made a false statement, the petitioner could not have been sent to the civil prison and accordingly order dated 30.07.2014 is quashed. In so far as, the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No. 16 of 2009-2010 is concerned, the petitioner is permitted to challenge the original order as well as the order passed in the review petition by preferring an appeal before the appellate authority. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petition disposed of.