Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 906 (JHR)

Abhyanand Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand

2021-10-26

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire certificate proceeding of Certificate Case no. 27 of 2014-15 including the orders dated 11th September, 2015 and 9th April, 2019, whereby the respondent no. 3 has issued warrant of arrest and distress warrant, respectively, against the petitioner without disposing of the petitioner’s objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act 1914’). Further prayer has been made for quashing the distress warrant issued by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner vide memo no. 434 dated 27th December, 2019. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that pursuant to issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914, the petitioner filed objection under Section 9 of the said Act on 11th June, 2014 before the respondent no. 3 in Certificate Case no. 27 of 2014-15, however, the said respondent without disposing of the said objection straightaway passed the orders dated 11th September, 2015 and 9th April, 2019 for issuance of warrant of arrest and distress warrant, respectively, against the petitioner. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, admitting inter-alia that the petitioner submitted his objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 on 11th June, 2014. It has, however, been stated in the said counter affidavit that subsequent to filing of the said objection, the petitioner did not appear in the aforesaid certificate case on three dates, which led to passing of the order dated 16th May, 2015 for issuance of demand letter to the petitioner so as to realise the certificate amount. It has further been stated that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring appeal under Section 60 of the Act, 1914 and hence the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. It is well settled that if in pursuance of issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914, a certificate debtor files an objection under Section 9 of the said Act, the Certificate Officer is under legal obligation to decide the same in terms with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, 1914 and unless the order is passed, steps for realization of the amount cannot be taken. 6. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner filed his objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 in Certificate Case no. 27 of 2014-15 on 11th June, 2014, however, the respondent no. 3 without passing any order under Section 10 of the said Act straightaway passed order on 16th May, 2015 for issuance of demand letter to the petitioner for realization of the certificate amount and, thereafter, vide orders dated 11th September, 2015 and 9th April, 2019, the warrant of arrest and distress warrant, respectively, were issued against the petitioner. Such procedure impropriety committed by the respondent no. 3 looms large in the present case. 7. Hence, the impugned orders dated 11th September, 2015 and 9th April, 2019 cannot sustain in law and the same are hereby quashed. Consequently, memo no. 434 dated 27th December, 2019 is also quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3 to pass an order under Section 10 of the Act, 1914, considering the objection preferred by the petitioner on 11th June, 2014 under Section 9 of the said Act and providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/his representative. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.