Order : Challenging the entire proceeding in Certificate (Electric) Case No. 05 of 199697 and seeking quashing of order dated 05.08.1998, whereby objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Pubic Demand Recovery Act, 1914 was dismissed in limine, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner no.1 company was granted electric connection on 09.03.1992 which was disconnected on 15.10.1992 on the ground that the petitioners unit has remained non-operational. The petitioners submitted application dated 08.06.1993 to the Electricity Board for waiver of the annual minimum guarantee charges however, no action was taken by the respondent the then Electricity Board. The petitioners approached the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Supply, Daltonganj for reconnection of the electricity line and electrical line was reconnected on deposit of Rs. 75,000/by the petitioners however, it was again disconnected on 18.06.1994. A demand for Rs. 11,82,416.90/was raised on 16.10.1995 and the proceeding commenced before the Certificate Officer, Palamau for recovery of the said amount. The certificate proceeding was initiated on 18.02.1997 and the petitioners appeared in the said proceeding on 06.05.1997 and filed objection under Section 9. The case was fixed on several dates and finally on 05.08.1998 objection under Section 9 was dismissed. Thereafter, file was transferred to the Certificate Officer, Electric Supply Circle, Ranchi however, no notice was issued to the petitioners. On 13.06.2015 when police visited the house of petitioner no. 2 and handed a copy of letter No. 282 dated 25.01.2003 to his family members the petitioners came to know about warrant of attachment issued by the Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the petitioners refers to proceeding before the Certificate Officer and submits that no notice was issued to the petitioners after the certificate case was transferred to Ranchi. It is contended that though, the certificate case was transferred way back in the year, 1998 and the proceeding in the certificate case continued behind the back of the petitioners, no step was taken by the certificate holder to serve notice upon the petitioners. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited submits that the petitioner-company is a defaulter and the petitioners have not disclosed what steps they took after 05.08.1998 to ascertain the orders passed in Certificate (Electric) Case No. 05 of 1996-97. 5. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited submits that the petitioner-company is a defaulter and the petitioners have not disclosed what steps they took after 05.08.1998 to ascertain the orders passed in Certificate (Electric) Case No. 05 of 1996-97. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. A perusal of proceeding in the certificate case discloses that on 05.08.1998 parties put their attendance however, the matter was not heard. Next date of hearing was fixed on 22.08.1998. What happens thereafter, is something which raises serious doubt in the mind of this Court that objection of the petitioners under Section 9 has been dismissed in absence of the petitioners. Order dated 05.08.1998 records as under; “later on, certificate-debtor has submitted application after time prescribed therefore, application of the certificate debtor is rejected.” 7. As noticed above, when the matter was called out on 05.08.1998, it was adjourned for 22.08.1998. From the proceeding before the Certificate Officer, it does not appear that later part of order dated 05.08.1998 was passed in presence of the parties. The said order was passed in a manner which cannot be approved in law. A perusal of order dated 10.08.1998 discloses that the record was transferred from Daltonganj to Ranchi. Admittedly, no notice was served to the parties regarding transfer of the certificate case to Ranchi. Order dated 25.08.1998/14.09.2000 discloses that notice was issued to the parties for hearing on 14.10.2000 however, it is not disclosed from the subsequent proceedings that notice was served upon the petitioners. The matter was next fixed on 20.05.2002 when warrant of arrest was issued and the certificate case was listed on several occasions till 25.01.2003. The proceeding before the Certificate Officer, between 20.05.2002 and 25.01.2003 discloses that both parties remained absent and report of execution of warrant was not received in the Court. I find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after record was received at Ranchi, parties were not served notices and therefore, none of the parties appeared before the Certificate Officer during this period. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to pay the certificate amount of Rs. I find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after record was received at Ranchi, parties were not served notices and therefore, none of the parties appeared before the Certificate Officer during this period. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to pay the certificate amount of Rs. 12,01,916/however, in view of the irregular proceeding conducted in Certificate (Electric) Case No. 05 of 1996-97, the certificate-holder cannot claim that the certificate-debtor must pay interest thereon. 8. Without going into the merits of the claim raised by the petitioners that it was entitled for benefit under Clause 13 of the HT Agreement and disconnection was illegal, I am of the considered opinion that rejection of objection under Section 9 filed by the petitioners is not sustainable in law. The proceeding in Certificate (Electric) Case No. 05 of 1996-97 discloses that after the certificate-debtor filed objection under Section 9, the certificate-holder took several adjournments for filing reply to objection under Section 9. A perusal of orders passed in the certificate case further discloses that hearing on the application under Section 9 continued on several dates however, it does not appear that hearing was adjourned at the instance of the certificate-debtor. Finally on 05.08.1998 by a cryptic order the said objection has been rejected in a most unsatisfactory manner. The petitioners were never served notice after the record was transferred to Ranchi. In fact, both the parties remained absent in the certificate proceeding. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that it would serve ends of justice if a direction is issued to the Certificate Officer-respondent no. 4 to close Certificate (Electric) Case No. 05 of 1996-97, upon payment of certificate amount of Rs. 12,01,916/by the petitioners. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioners shall make payment of Rs. 2,00,000/within two months from the date of this order and thereafter, the balance amount of Rs. 10,01,916/would be paid by the petitioners in 5 equal monthly installments however, without interest. The payment shall be made within 1st seven days of each calendar month. During this period execution of warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners shall remain suspended. However, if the petitioners fail to make payment of Rs. 12,01,916/in terms of this order, the Certificate Officer shall proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms. During this period execution of warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners shall remain suspended. However, if the petitioners fail to make payment of Rs. 12,01,916/in terms of this order, the Certificate Officer shall proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms. I.A. No. 3854 of 2015 also stands disposed of.