JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Krishna Murari, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : “(a) For quashing the Entire Certificate Proceeding including the order dated 22.01.2010 and 23.02.2010 passed by the Respondent No.2 in connection with Certificate Case No. 95/1990-91 whereby and where under, after about 20 years the objection filed by the petitioner within the meaning of Section-9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act-1914 has been unilaterally/arbitrarily rejected and then without information and thereby affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the order for issuance of warrant of arrest has been passed in gross departure to mandatory provisions of Sections 10, 14 & 15 of the said Act. (b) Consequently, the petitioner further prays to quash the Warrant of Arrest issued vide memo No. 395 dated 15.03.2010; wherein the petitioner has been saddled to deposit Rs. 18,988.00 by way of demand, which is absolutely arbitrary, whimsical and illegal besides in violation of principle of natural justice and fairplay. (c) Further for direction upon the Respondent-State to constitute a High Level Committee to enquire into the overall conduct and affairs of the office of the Respondent No.2, whose action as reflected from the entire order sheet of the case in question (Annexure-6) is admittedly laconic much less arbitrary and whimsical in total departure of Rules and Regulation as morefully described under the P.D.R. Act and thereby law of the land. Accordingly the petitioner further prays to take suitable disciplinary action to uphold the administrative probity attached with his office so as to preserve the public confidence in the democratic and welfare Constitution as a whole. (d) Consequently, to award suitable cost and compensation for putting the petitioner; an innocent poor, and helpless tribal in undue mental and physical agony, de-hors his fundamental right of peace and liberty along with his entire family members; unduly put to irreparable loss and injuries. (e) For any other relief/reliefs, the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a certificate proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a notice contained in memo No. 1339 dated 19.09.1990 was issued to the petitioner wherein it was mentioned that a notice vide letter no. (e) For any other relief/reliefs, the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a certificate proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a notice contained in memo No. 1339 dated 19.09.1990 was issued to the petitioner wherein it was mentioned that a notice vide letter no. 870 dated 02.08.1990 under Section 40(8) of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 was issued to the petitioner by Assistant Mining Officer, Dumka and an amount of Rs. 6,600/- was due against the petitioner. Thereafter, a certificate proceeding was initiated under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 and a certificate dated 22.10.1990 was issued. The Certificate Officer issued notice vide process No. 808 dated 25.10.1990 by instituting a case number being 95 of 1990-91. 5. He submits that the petitioner filed objection before the Certificate Officer and the filing of objection by the petitioner has been recorded in the order-sheet dated 10.06.1991/ 25.06.1991. The Certificate Officer vide order dated 10.06.1991/25.06.1991 asked the certificate-holder to file their response to the objection. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific case of the petitioner was that the petitioner, after due permission of the Circle Officer, had used mud of his own property for manufacture of one lakh bricks for the purposes of constructing his own house, which the petitioner has constructed and therefore, the entire provisions of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 was not applicable upon the petitioner and accordingly, the amount demanded by the respondents could not have been demanded. 7. He submits that the entire proceeding which has been initiated by the respondents under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 is based on misconception of fact and law. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Circle Officer vide memo No. 832 dated 13.12.1990 and also letter No. 888 dated 18.09.1993 has confirmed that the petitioner had manufactured the bricks on his own land and for the purposes of construction of the house and he has constructed a house out of the said bricks. He submits that in spite of repeated reminders, the respondents did not respond to the objection filed by the petitioner although the petitioner has been appearing before the Certificate Officer on most of the occasions. 9. He submits that in spite of repeated reminders, the respondents did not respond to the objection filed by the petitioner although the petitioner has been appearing before the Certificate Officer on most of the occasions. 9. He further refers to the order dated 17.10.1995 and submits that after 17.10.1995, the matter was taken up only on 06.07.2004 and even by that time, the response to the objection filed by the petitioner was not received by the Certificate Officer and after 06.07.2004, the next date was 06.01.2006 and he submits that by this time, 16 years have already elapsed in the year 2006 from the date of institution of the certificate proceedings. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner has referred to the impugned order as contained in order dated 22.01.2010 wherein the objection filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not appeared before the said authority. 11. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not aware about the date on 22.01.2010 and therefore, the petitioner did not appear before the said authority and further, otherwise also as the objection of the petitioner as well as the report of the Circle Officer was on record, the authority ought to have considered the same while passing the impugned order. He submits that the impugned order is a cryptic, non-speaking order and prima facie the entire certificate proceeding appears to be an abuse of process of law. 12. Thereafter, he submits that a warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner by the impugned order, as contained in Memo No. 395 dated 15.03.2010. He submits that both the orders being order dated 22.01.2010 and Memo No. 395 dated 15.03.2010 have been challenged in this writ petition. He has also challenged the order dated 23.02.2010 by which the order was passed for issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 13. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable on account of the alternative remedy of appeal which is available to the petitioner and he submits that it was found that the petitioner was using the bricks for commercial purposes. However, so far as the report of the Circle Officer which has been annexed as Annexure-4 and 5 to this writ petition is concerned, counsel for the respondent has nothing to say. However, so far as the report of the Circle Officer which has been annexed as Annexure-4 and 5 to this writ petition is concerned, counsel for the respondent has nothing to say. He has also referred to one inspection report as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit which merely contains the signature of the Minor Inspector but this does not have any independent witness. 14. After considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has been subjected to the certificate proceeding right from the year, 1990 and the petitioner has filed his objection before the authority as back as on 10.06.1991/ 25.06.1991 but in spite of repeated opportunities given to the respondents, the respondents did not file any response to the objection filed by the writ petitioner before the Certificate Officer and it further transpires that the petitioner has been appearing before the Certificate Officer on most of the dates. 15. This Court further finds that on 17.10.1995, the comment on the objection filed by the petitioner was not received and the next date was 06.07.2004 and thereafter, the matter was taken up on 06.01.2006. This Court finds that at last, vide order dated 22.01.2010 the Certificate Officer, in absence of the petitioner, rejected the objection filed by the petitioner by a non-speaking order without considering the objection filed by the petitioner although admittedly, the reports of the circle Officer was on record. This Court is of the considered view that the Certificate Officer, even in absence of the petitioner ought to have considered the objection filed by the petitioner and also the report of the Circle Officer already on record. Non-consideration of the materials available on record, and rejection of the objection of the petitioner by a non-speaking order, even in absence of the petitioner, amounts to gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play on the part of the Certificate Officer and accordingly, the objection of the respondents regarding availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner is hereby rejected and the impugned order dated 22.01.2010 rejecting the objection of the petitioner and also subsequent order regarding warrant of arrest dated 23.02.2010 as well as Memo No. 395 dated 15.03.2010 are hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Certificate Officer for fresh consideration of the materials available on record and for passing fresh order on the objection filed by the petitioner. 16. Considering the fact that the certificate case is of the year, 1990 the Certificate Officer is directed to pass fresh speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Certificate Officer is also directed to fix a date of hearing and issue notice to the petitioner for the purposes of hearing. 17. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.