Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 629 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Choudhary v. State of Bihar

2022-07-25

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, SHAILENDRA SINGH

body2022
ORDER I.A. No. 2 of 2022 In the present application, the petitioners have challenged the validity and sustainability of the entire certificate case instituted by the respondent Director Food Processing, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar registered as Certificate Case No. 1 of 2018-19 in the Court of Certificate Officer, Araria on the ground of absence of jurisdiction and authority in terms of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act 1914 (for short ‘PDR Act’). 2. During the pendency of the writ application before this Court, the respondent-Certificate Officer, Araria continued with the proceedings of the certificate case. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of the PDR Act. The objection submitted by the petitioners primarily dealt with the issue of the maintainability of the certificate proceeding under the PDR Act for recovery of grant-in-aid provided by the Government. However, the respondent-Certificate Officer, Araria, vide order dated 10.06.2022 acceded to the prayer of the respondent and directed the petitioners to pay back the amount of subsidy to the government, failing which coercive action would be taken in terms of the provisions of the PDR Act. The said order was communicated to the petitioner through letter dated 11.06.2022. 3. By filing an Interlocutory Application, the petitioners have prayed for grant of leave to amend the relief by adding the following reliefs in the main writ petition:— “(a) For issuance of a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 10.6.2022 passed in certificate case no. 1 of 2018-2019 by the respondent certificate officer, Araria during the pendency of the writ application. (b) For holding and a declaration that the impugned order dated 10.06.2022 passed in certificate case no. 1 of 2018-19 by the respondent certificate officer, Araria is non speaking, cryptic and suffers from serious jurisdictional error as it does not deal with the vital question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners in its objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 1 of 2018-19 by the respondent certificate officer, Araria is non speaking, cryptic and suffers from serious jurisdictional error as it does not deal with the vital question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners in its objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914.” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering that the amendments sought for by the petitioners are consequential in nature whereby the order passed by the Certificate Officer determining the liability under Section 10 of the PDR Act, during the pendency of the instant application, whereby the petitioners have been asked to deposit Rs.96.42 lacs within sixty days failing which distress warrant and order of attachment would be passed against them, we are inclined to allow the Interlocutory Application. The amendments referred to hereinabove as (a) and (b) should be treated as prayers made in the original writ petition itself as prayer nos. (g) and (h). 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that a counter affidavit has already been filed in the writ application on behalf of State. However, in view of the amendments made in the prayer by the petitioners, a supplementary counter affidavit would be required to be filed. He prays for two weeks’ time in order to enable him to seek instruction to file a supplementary counter affidavit in the matter. 6. The contention of the petitioners in the present application is that they are the Director in an incorporated company namely Auro Sundaram International Private Limited. The company had availed capital subsidy from the respondent- Department of Industries. The certificate proceeding for realisation of capital subsidy granted in favour of an incorporated company is not maintainable and, in any case, the liability of the company cannot be fastened against the Directors of the Company. In this regard, the petitioners have placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Bihar and ors. (LPA No. 371 of 2002). 7. As prayed for on behalf of the State, list on 08.08.2022. 8. Till further order, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of Certificate Case No. 01 of 2018-19 pending before the Certificate Officer, Araria.