JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. 2. Though a reply to I.A. No. 6312/2020 has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in terms with the order dated 25.08.2021, yet keeping in view that the pleading in this case is complete, the Court proceeds to hear the writ petition itself on merit. 3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire certificate proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Certificate Case No. 20 (Misc.)/2019-20 under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1914’). Further prayer has been made for quashing the warrant of attachment dated 18.09.2019 issued by the respondent No. 5 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) in the said certificate case. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondent No. 5 to dispose of its objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 and in the meantime, not to take any coercive step against it with respect to the said certificate case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was awarded the work vide agreement dated 05.02.2018 for lifting paddy crops from different PACS, milling the paddy into Custom Milled Rice (CMR) and transporting the same to the FCI godown of concerned district. In terms with the said agreement, the petitioner was entitled to get Rs. 20/- per quintal towards milling charges with certain incentives equivalent to milling charges and also the transportation charges. The petitioner executed the said work as per the agreement and submitted the bill for payment of Rs. 2.92 Crores and odd, however, the same was not paid to it. A notice dated 25.07.2019 (dispatched on 16.09.2019) issued under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 raising a demand of Rs. 7,52,65,003.52 was received by the petitioner on 21.09.2019. The petitioner replied the said notice by filing objection on 12.10.2019 i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same stating inter-alia that the said dues was not recoverable under the Act, 1914. However, the respondent No. 5 had already issued the impugned warrant of attachment under Section 15 of the Act, 1914 on 18.09.2019. The petitioner replied the said notice by filing objection on 12.10.2019 i.e. within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same stating inter-alia that the said dues was not recoverable under the Act, 1914. However, the respondent No. 5 had already issued the impugned warrant of attachment under Section 15 of the Act, 1914 on 18.09.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a recall petition stating that the notice under Section 7 was served to it on 21.09.2019 and the reply to the same was filed within the statutory period of 30 days, however, the said application of the petitioner was also not considered by the respondent No. 5. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner-Company had not supplied the rice in proportion to the paddy received by it from different PACS and thus it was liable to return an amount of Rs. 7,52,64,978.52, but despite service of notice issued to it for the said purpose, the petitioner failed to return the said amount which led to filing of the said certificate case. If the petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of warrant of attachment dated 18.09.2019 against it under Section 15 of the Act, 1914, it has got alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal before the appellate authority under Section 60 of the Act, 1914. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. It is also submitted that the said amount of defalcation is recoverable as a public demand under the Act, 1914. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner has contended that the impugned warrant of attachment has been issued in violation of the statutory provisions of the Act, 1914. The notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 was duly replied by it within the prescribed time, however, the same was not considered by the respondent No. 5 and hence on this score alone, the impugned warrant of attachment is liable to be quashed. 7. To appreciate the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the relevant documents annexed with the present writ petition. It appears that the notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 for recovery of alleged dues of Rs. 7. To appreciate the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the relevant documents annexed with the present writ petition. It appears that the notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 for recovery of alleged dues of Rs. 7,52,65,003.52 was issued on 25.07.2019 stating therein that if the petitioner had any objection regarding payment of aforesaid due amount in whole or any part thereof, it may reply within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was however dispatched on 16.09.2019 and immediately thereafter, the warrant of attachment was issued on 18.09.2019. The petitioner has claimed that the said notice was received on 21.09.2019 and in support thereof, it has brought on record the receiving obtained from the office of the Department of Post. Though the respondents have filed counter affidavit also opposing the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative/efficacious/ statutory remedy of preferring appeal before the appellate authority under Section 60 of the Act, 1914 against the impugned warrant of attachment, yet they have not specifically denied the aforesaid factual assertion of the petitioner. It appears that the respondent No. 5 before deciding the objection of the petitioner as required under Section 10 of the Act, 1914, has straightway issued the impugned warrant of attachment which is violative of the statutory provisions of law as well as the principles of natural justice. 8. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, is a rule of selfimposed limitation. It is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226, despite the existence of an alternative remedy. It has further been held that the Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power, if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice or the procedure required for decision has not been adopted. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned warrant of attachment dated 18.09.2019 issued against the petitioner in Certificate Case No. 20(Misc.)/2019-20 is hereby quashed. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned warrant of attachment dated 18.09.2019 issued against the petitioner in Certificate Case No. 20(Misc.)/2019-20 is hereby quashed. The present writ petition is disposed of without entering into the merit of the rival claims of the parties with a direction to the respondent No. 5 to consider the petitioner’s objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 and to pass appropriate order under Section 10 of the said Act after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s representative.