JUDGMENT : Amitav K. Gupta, J. I.A No. 6483/2017 In this interlocutory application, the petitioner seeks amendment in the prayer of the writ application by incorporating the prayer for quashing the order dated 01.08.2017 (Annexure-1 of the interlocutory application). It is submitted that the writ was filed praying for a direction/order for quashing the letter No. 353 dated 24.08.2016 (Annexure-6 of the writ petition) issued by the District Cooperative Officer, Pakur, in pursuance of the Resolution No. 1 dated 01.08.2016 (Annexure-7). That by the aforesaid letter (Annexure-6), the District Cooperative Officer, Pakur, directed the petitioner cooperative society to deposit a sum of Rs. 47,17,860/- as cost for the paddy, weighing 3346, quintals, lying with the petitioner. 2. Learned senior counsel has submitted that during the pendency of the writ application, the Additional Collector-cum-Certificate Officer, Pakur, initiated Certificate Case No. 46/1617 for recovery of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner society and one Ravindra Kumar Thakur, the authorized representative of M/s. Shree Shakambari Industries Pvt. Ltd., inspite of the fact that the writ with respect to the subject matter was pending for adjudication before this Court. That the District Cooperative Officer filed a requisition before the Certificate Officer on 25.10.2016 for recovery of the aforesaid amount from Shyamal Kant Saha and Shri Ravindra Kumar Thakur, Annexures-2 and 2/1. 3. It is submitted that it would be evident from the impugned order that liability to pay the aforesaid amount has been jointly fixed upon the rice mill and the petitioner cooperative society (LAMPS). It would be evident that no conclusive finding has been recorded regarding the definite amount which is to be recovered from the respective parties. In fact, the order has been passed without apportionment of the liability with respect to the amount to be paid by the respective parties. 4. It is urged that the order has been passed in an arbitrary manner and without affording an opportunity of hearing and is not tenable. That if the amendment is not allowed, the petitioner shall suffer irretrievable injustice as he had a good case on the point of maintainability of such order. 5. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent State, i.e. respondent No. 15, has submitted that the petitioner, by letter dated 01.09.2016 (Annexure-A of the counter affidavit) had sought permission for selling the aforesaid quantity of paddy lying with the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent State, i.e. respondent No. 15, has submitted that the petitioner, by letter dated 01.09.2016 (Annexure-A of the counter affidavit) had sought permission for selling the aforesaid quantity of paddy lying with the petitioner. The authority, vide letter dated 4.10.2016 (Annexure-C), had given the liberty to the petitioner to dispose off the paddy at its own end and also asked the the authority to initiate necessary disciplinary action for realization of the amount (the copy of the letter was served to the cooperative society). In the given facts, it cannot be argued that the order is arbitrary. 6. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, has submitted that as per the resolution dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure-1 of the writ petition), it was made clear that if the paddy was not lifted by the rice mill, the petitioner was required to intimate the District Monitoring Committee and the Monitoring Committee would tag the society with another rice mill for lifting of the paddy. The petitioner has annexed the resolution and he was well aware about the required procedure to be followed in terms of the resolution but for reasons best known to the petitioner, it kept corresponding with the rice mill but never intimated the competent authority about the actual state of affairs. 7. At this juncture, learned senior counsel submits that it would be evident, from Annexure-5 series, that the petitioner society has been writing letters to the District Manager of the Jharkhand Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and the District Cooperative Officer, who are the competent authority but they did not take any action in the matter in terms of the resolution (Annexure-1). 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that it would be evident that Annexure-5 series were not addressed to the District Monitoring Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, rather they were addressed to the District Manager and District Cooperative Officer, who are not the competent authority in terms of the resolution of the District Monitoring Committee. 9. Heard. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that it would be evident that Annexure-5 series were not addressed to the District Monitoring Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, rather they were addressed to the District Manager and District Cooperative Officer, who are not the competent authority in terms of the resolution of the District Monitoring Committee. 9. Heard. The prayer for amendment for quashing the order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the Additional Collector-cum-Certificate Officer, Pakur, for realization of the aforesaid amount cannot be entertained because the petitioner has an efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance by preferring an appeal before the appropriate authority in terms of section 60 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate the questions regarding the composite demand made by the impugned order whereby the liability to pay the amount has not been apportioned rather a joint liability has been fixed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, in case the appeal is preferred by the petitioner. In view of the alternative remedy available, the prayer for amendment stands rejected, accordingly I.A No. 6483/2017 stands dismissed. W.P (C) No. 5773 of 2016 10. In view of the observations made hereinabove, at this stage this writ application is dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty is reserved with the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under section 60 of the Act and raise all the issues, argued hereinabove as well as the issue regarding maintainability of the order fixing the liability jointly on the parties. 11. The petitioner shall file the appeal under 60 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 by 31st August, 2017. Till that date, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. If any application for stay is filed in the appeal, the appellate authority shall pass necessary order at the earliest and decide the appeal within eight weeks. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view or opinion on the merit of the case and the appellate authority shall pass necessary order on merit in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. 13. With the said direction, this writ petition is, hereby, disposed off. Petition disposed of