Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 587 (JHR)

SANJAY SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

2015-05-06

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Challenging order dated 15.01.2013 in Certificate Case No.31(MR) 1993-94 whereby, warrant of attachment has been ordered by the Certificate Officer and seeking quashing of Certificate dated 23.07.1993, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner claiming himself an unemployed graduate is aggrieved by the initiation of Certificate Case No.31(MR)1993-94. It is stated that the petitioner was never running brickkiln in village Chatakpur, Ranchi. The Certificate dated 23.07.1993 issued for realisation of Rs.25,000/on account of royalty, Rs.12,500/as cost of mineral, Rs.2,000/as cost of application and Rs.900/for royalty on sand, does not comply with the requirement under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. No notice under Section 7 of PDR Act was served upon the petitioner however, warrant of attachment was ordered on 15.01.2013. The petitioner obtained copy of 'Certificate of Public Demand' and the order sheet in Certificate Case however, the requisition made under Section 5 in Form No.2 of PDR Act was not furnished to the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. Mr. V. P. Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without any enquiry and determination of the liability of the petitioner, requisition was made. The 'Certificate of Public Demand' was signed and prepared by the Certificate Officer on 23.07.1993 on the basis of Requisition No.31/199394 of the Assistant Mining Officer, Ranchi. It is submitted that the 'Certificate of Public Demand' is in the form of a decree and therefore, the requisition officer is under a duty to make an enquiry and determine the liability. The requisition made under Section 5 of the PDR Act is not in terms of the mandatory provisions and thus, the requisition in Form2 is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that in fact, in the present case there is no requisition in Form2. It is further submitted that in view of the irregular proceeding conducted in Certificate Case No.31(MR)1993-94, the entire Certificate proceeding is liable to be quashed. 5. As against the above, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P.V submits that the petitioner failed to pay the certificate amount within 30 days and therefore, an attachment order was issued on 07.03.1995 however, the petitioner neither appeared nor filed objection under Section 9 of the PDR Act. 5. As against the above, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned G.P.V submits that the petitioner failed to pay the certificate amount within 30 days and therefore, an attachment order was issued on 07.03.1995 however, the petitioner neither appeared nor filed objection under Section 9 of the PDR Act. The requisition sent by the Assistant Mining Officer clearly shows that the petitioner was running a brickkiln. The notice issued under Section 7 of PDR Act was served on the petitioner on 28.07.1993. It is further submitted that the petitioner's counsel filed Vakalatnama on 29.09.1994. 6. The original record of Certificate Case No.31(MR)1993-94 has been produced in the Court. 7. A perusal of the ordersheet of Certificate Case No.31(MR)1993-94 would disclose that requisition for Rs.40,400/was received on 23.07.1993 and notice was issued to the certificate debtor. The order dated 14.12.1993 discloses that notice under Section 7 of PDR Act was served upon the petitioner on 28.07.1993. Accordingly, warrant of attachment was ordered by the Certificate Officer. On 07.03.1995, the matter was listed however, no report was produced as to execution of warrant of attachment as ordered on 14.12.1993. Still, a fresh warrant of attachment was ordered to be issued vide order dated 07.03.1995. The petitioner has denied service of notice under Section 7 of PDR Act. The original record reveals endorsement of the serving officer that on 28.07.1993, the certificatedebtor has received the notice. Signature of a person with date also appears on the notice however, a bare look at the signature on the notice and signature of the petitioner on the Vakalatnama and the affidavit accompanying the writ petition would disclose that signature on notice under Section 7 of PDR Act is of a different person. Before the Certificate Officer, the matter was listed on 01.08.1995 and on further two occasions however, no date is mentioned in the ordersheet. About 18 years thereafter, the matter was listed on 15.01.2013, when the warrant of attachment was again ordered. Proceeding of Certificate Case No.31(MR)1993-94 discloses that the case was not listed on the dates fixed. The ordersheet further reveals that after 01.08.1995, on two occasions order of attachment has been ordered however, no report of execution of warrant of attachment was received. The proceeding in Certificate Case was conducted in the most irregular manner. Proceeding of Certificate Case No.31(MR)1993-94 discloses that the case was not listed on the dates fixed. The ordersheet further reveals that after 01.08.1995, on two occasions order of attachment has been ordered however, no report of execution of warrant of attachment was received. The proceeding in Certificate Case was conducted in the most irregular manner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Assistant Mining Officer, a claim has been raised that the certificate dues has mounted to Rs.01,46,392/. In view of the delay in proceeding of the Certificate Case and the irregular manner in which it was conducted, the respondents cannot claim interest on the certificate amount. No reason has been disclosed by the respondents why the warrant of attachment issued way back on 07.03.1995 and on subsequent occasions were not executed. In absence of such a report, knowledge of the pending proceeding of Certificate Case No.31(MR)1993-94 cannot be imputed to the petitioner. 8. Mr. V.P. Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the principal amount, without interest however, some time may be granted to the petitioner for making the payment. 9. Considering the above facts, without entering into the merits of the matter, I am of the opinion that it would serve the end of justice, if the petitioner is directed to make payment of the principal certificate amount of Rs.40,400/within a period of two months. Accordingly, it is ordered that the certificate case would be closed if the petitioner makes payment of Rs.40,400/on or before 07.07.2015. However, if the petitioner fails to make the aforesaid payment, the petitioner would be at liberty to file objection under Section 9, which shall be dealt with, in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is allowed, in the above terms.