Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 546 (JHR)

Vivekanand Choudhary v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-03-21

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner is facing certificate proceedings before the Respondent No. 5 - District Certificate Officer, Koderma in Certificate Case No. 317/2016-17. He has approached this Court on issuance of warrant of arrest to enforce his appearance, as per order dated 25.01.2017. As per the case of the petitioner also, he was in receipt of notice on 31.01.2017. He has contended that 15 days time would have expired on 15.02.2017. Petitioner took all possible steps to prepare his defence and instructed his lawyer also to pray for keeping the arrest warrant in abeyance. Such application was made on 11.02.2017. However, ignoring all this infirmities in the service of notice and procedure required to be followed, warrant of arrest was issued on 08.02.2017 as coercive measure which has aggrieved the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. Respondents were allowed time to obtain instructions on 28.02.2017. Counter affidavit have been filed thereafter on 08.03.2017. Respondents have stated that after receipt of requisition of certificate pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting of Zila Parishad on 20.12.2016 presided over by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, Certificate Case No. 317/2016-17 was registered on 24.12.2016. Notice was also issued on the same day. According to them, notice was sent on 26.12.2016, but the petitioner refused to accept the same. Again, it was sent on 27.12.2016 which was also refused. Annexure-C and C/1 is enclosed in support thereof. Receipt of dispatch by Registered post is enclosed as Annexure-D i.e. on 27.12.2016. According to the learned counsel for the Respondents, petitioner was required to take his objection within 30 days to the certificate in question. Since there was no response from the petitioner, order was passed on 25.01.2017 against the petitioner as to why warrant of arrest be not issued against him upon expiry of 15 days. The warrant of arrest has been issued on 08.02.2017 in such background circumstances. 4. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the same also. He has taken objection to the statement made by the Respondents on the point of service of notice as also non-supply of certified copy of the order sheet. According to the petitioner, only first and third page of the order sheet were supplied in spite of requisition made. 4. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the same also. He has taken objection to the statement made by the Respondents on the point of service of notice as also non-supply of certified copy of the order sheet. According to the petitioner, only first and third page of the order sheet were supplied in spite of requisition made. Notice had itself been received on 31.01.2017 and before expiry of that 15 days period, warrant of arrest was issued on 08.02.2017. This approach of the Certificate Officer smacks of malafide also. 5. A prayer has also been made through I.A. No. 2397/2017 that direction may be issued to the Respondents to transfer the case to some other Certificate Officer. Petitioner has accordingly sought amendment in the main writ application to that effect. 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties in the light of factual background. 7. Essentially, petitioner who is facing a certificate case in relation to the recovery of a public demand, is required to respond to the notice and submit his objection, if any, before the Certificate Officer. The chronology of events, narrated by the parties with some dispute about service of notice, however does not leave any room of doubt that the petitioner was in receipt of service on 31.01.2017 in any case. Without dilating in the matter on that aspect any further, keeping larger perspective in mind, it is deemed appropriate that the petitioner be directed to submit to the jurisdiction of the District Certificate Officer, Koderma (Respondent No. 5) within a period of two weeks from today, taking all available grounds of law and facts in his objection, if any. The Respondent No. 5 would thereafter proceed to determine the objection in terms of section 10 of the Act as it is informed that no such determination has yet been made. Dependent upon such determination, he shall proceed thereafter in accordance with law for recovery of public demand. Grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner for transfer of the proceedings to any other Certificate Officer, however do not impress the Court. 8. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. I.A. No. 2397/2017 is dismissed. The impugned order of warrant of arrest has already been stayed by the Learned Certificate Officer, it can be given effect to only if the petitioner fails to submit to his jurisdiction within a period of two weeks from today. 8. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. I.A. No. 2397/2017 is dismissed. The impugned order of warrant of arrest has already been stayed by the Learned Certificate Officer, it can be given effect to only if the petitioner fails to submit to his jurisdiction within a period of two weeks from today. The Certificate Officer is at liberty to take coercive steps in the matter for his appearance thereafter.