Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 571 (JHR)

Vivekanand Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-27

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P.II for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in this application has prayed for setting aside the order dated 27/28.12.2018 passed by the District Certificate Officer, Koderma in Certificate Case No. 317/16-17, whereby and whereunder the review application preferred by the petitioner on 26.12.2018 has been rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order dated 06.11.2018 passed by the District Certificate Officer, Koderma in Certificate Case No. 317/16-17 and for a direction for grant of opportunity to file objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 after providing all the papers for consideration. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the subsequent order by which coercive step has been directed to be taken against the petitioner. 3. It appears from the factual aspects of the case that a certificate proceeding was initiated under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 against the petitioner as well as other Engineers. An order was passed on 06.11.2018 directing the petitioner to deposit the requisitioned amount and submit a No Objection Certificate before the Certificate Officer failing which auction of movable and immovable properties were contemplated against the petitioner and other certificate debtors. The petitioner claims that subsequently he had obtained certificate documents which would show that the amount was properly utilized with respect to the work which was the subject matter of Certificate Case No. 317/16-17 and accordingly a review application was preferred by the petitioner under Section 63 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act. The petitioner has also stated that certain documents were also not provided to him and since it was claimed that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 06.11.2018 as indicated above the review application was preferred. Consequent to the same vide order dated 28.12.2018 the review application was rejected on the ground that the order dated 06.11.2018 was not complied with. 4. Consequent to the same vide order dated 28.12.2018 the review application was rejected on the ground that the order dated 06.11.2018 was not complied with. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that with respect to the other persons against whom certificate proceedings were initiated they had also preferred review applications and there was an order of stay passed for realization of the dues against them but so far as the petitioner is concerned by passing a cryptic order and without considering the document which the petitioner had brought on record the review application was dismissed. 5. Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P.II for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of preferring an appeal under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act. 6. On consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through the records as indicated above the order dated 28.12.2018 passed by the Certificate Officer has been visited. The said order does not at all reveal that there was any application of mind on the part of the Certificate Officer and merely because the order dated 06.11.2018 has not been complied with and without giving appropriate reasons the review application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. In fact it appears that the review application of the other aggrieved parties were entertained and it has been claimed by the petitioner that the document which has been obtained by him would show that the amount which was advanced for the work concerned was properly utilized. The submission which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not at all been appreciated or considered by the Certificate Officer as would be apparent from the impugned order dated 28.12.2018. The order being cryptic and does not indicate application of mind on the part of the Certificate Officer becomes unsustainable in the eye of law and accordingly the same is hereby quashed and set aside with a direction to the Certificate Officer to consider the review application of the petitioner afresh and pass necessary orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing within a period of three weeks' from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. 7. Consequent to the setting aside of the order dated 28.12.2018 the subsequent order dated 24.01.2019 is also hereby quashed and set aside. Order set aside.