ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 24.06.2013 in Certificate Appeal Case No.12 of 2013, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 was not entertained by the Certificate Officer on the ground of delay and thus, there is no determination of the certificate amount by the Certificate Officer. It is contended that the provision under Section 62 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 is thus, not attracted in the present case and the dismissal of the Certificate Appeal Case No.12 of 2013 on the ground of noncompliance of 40% deposit of the certificate amount is not sustainable in law. 3. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned counsel for the respondent-Union Bank of India supporting the impugned order dated 24.06.2013 submits that the statutory provision under Section 62 of 1914 Act is mandatory unless, the deposit as required under Section 62 is waived on showing reasonable cause by the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand also opposes the writ petition. 4. The facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition disclose that in the certificate proceeding, notice under Section 7 was served upon the petitioner and the guarantor on 08.04.2010. The learned counsel for the respondent-Union Bank of India has referred to order-sheet in Certificate Case No. 249/BL/09-10. It is submitted that the plea taken by the petitioner that notice was not served upon him is contrary to the record of the certificate case. It is not in dispute that the Certificate Officer vide order dated 08.06.2010 refused to entertain the application seeking time for filing objection, against which W.P.(C) No. 3757 of 2010 was preferred by the petitioner. In the proceeding of W.P.(C) No. 3757 of 2010, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 6 lacs out of the certificate amount of Rs. 8,82,166.75. The petitioner however, failed to comply order dated 13.12.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3757 of 2010. It appears that against the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 3757 of 2010, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No.5 of 2011. However, the writ petition as well as the Letters Patent Appeal were withdrawn by him. 8,82,166.75. The petitioner however, failed to comply order dated 13.12.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3757 of 2010. It appears that against the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 3757 of 2010, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No.5 of 2011. However, the writ petition as well as the Letters Patent Appeal were withdrawn by him. Thereafter, Certificate Appeal Case No. 138 of 2010-11 preferred by the petitioner stood dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2013 and subsequently, the revision application being Certificate Appeal Case No. 12 of 2013 preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2013. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that unless objection under Section 9 is decided, it cannot be assumed that the certificate amount has been determined by the Certificate Officer is liable to be rejected. The amount mentioned in the certificate stands approved by the certificate officer, once challenge to order dated 08.06.2010 failed. After the petitioner failed to comply with order passed by the Writ Court, he must comply the requirement under the Act. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, the provision under Section 62 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 is mandatory except, for the sufficient cause shown by the appellant for waiving the requirement of deposit of 40% of the certificate amount. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.