JUDGMENT : 1. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 02.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4281 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has declined to quash the entire certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No.21(MC)/2012-13 including notice dated 28.04.2014 as contained in Memo No. 23 by which the appellant-writ petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.11,96,856/-. 2. The brief facts, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated, read as hereunder : It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that the appellant/writ petitioner used to lift the minerals and materials as per the direction of the consignors from the dump-yard or stockyard or the mines of the said consignors and used to transport the same as per the guidance and instructions of the consignors. It is the further case of the appellant/writ petitioner that under Section 23 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, the Jharkhand Government promulgated Jharkhand Mineral Dealer Rule, 2007 and the Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulation, 2005. The Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulation is for transportation and dispatch of ores and minerals and while dispatching, this transit challans are to be accompanied with the consignors. The Jharkhand Mineral Dealer Rules, 2007 was promulgated to regulate possession, storage, trading and transport of minerals and mineral products. It is the further case of the appellant/writ petitioner that on 05.08.2009, a letter was issued in the name of appellant/writ petitioner by the Assistant Mining Officer, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum, stating therein that the appellant/writ petitioner has illegally stored iron ore in Mouza Jaipur Hatgamaharia without obtaining the license under the Jharkhand Mineral Dealer Rules, 2007. The appellant/writ petitioner was asked to show cause as to why not an appropriate action would be taken in case of reply having not been found satisfactory. The appellant/writ petitioner, on 28.08.2009, had categorically informed to the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, that no illegal iron ore is stored in the stockyard/dumping/transhipment point at Mouza Jaipur, Hatgamharia. It was further informed that the appellant/writ petitioner had not purchased or sold any iron ore or any iron ore fines. The appellant/writ petitioner, on 28.08.2009, had categorically informed to the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa, that no illegal iron ore is stored in the stockyard/dumping/transhipment point at Mouza Jaipur, Hatgamharia. It was further informed that the appellant/writ petitioner had not purchased or sold any iron ore or any iron ore fines. It is the further the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that even though reply was furnished but vide letter dated 02.06.2011, the appellant-writ petitioner was directed to pay Rs.7,77,000/- as a price of mineral and fine/penalty for stocking 1500 MT of iron ore in Mouza Jaipur, or else, the certificate proceeding would be initiated. The appellant/writ petitioner, immediately thereafter, vide letter dated 06.07.2011 has stated that neither they have stockyard, dump-yard or transhipment point for stocking of iron ore nor they purchased or sold any iron ore in any form but even thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner received a notice dated 28.04.2014 of initiation of certificate proceeding directing the appellant/writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.11,96,856/- against which a writ petition had been filed questioning therein that the appellant/writ petitioner is not liable to make any payment but without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, a certificate proceeding had been initiated. The learned Single Judge, after considering the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner had approached this Court at the notice stage only having been issued by the certificate officer, therefore, declined to interfere with the certificate proceeding, however, with the liberty to appear before the certificate officer and file his objection who will hear the certificate case and decide the same in accordance with law without prejudice to any observation made in the order. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner is not liable to make payment as has been referred in the notice dated 28.04.2014 issued by the Certificate Officer passed in Certificate Case No. 21(MC)/2012-13, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from material irregularity, as such, the order impugned may be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr. 4. Per contra, Mr. Rohan Kashyap, learned AC to GA-II has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge reason being that the competent authority of the State Government had passed the order rejecting the reply furnished by the appellant/writ petitioner in terms of the letter dated 05.08.2009 but while passing the order on 02.06.2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellant/writ petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.7,77,000/-, according to the learned counsel, so long as the said decision will not be reversed, it would not be available for the appellant/writ petitioner to question the certificate proceeding due to the reason that the certificate proceeding has been initiated for depositing an amount to the tune of Rs.7,77,000/- but herein, the appellant/writ petitioner, without assailing the order adjudicating the amount which has been directed to be deposited by the appellant/writ petitioner, the certificate proceeding has been questioned. Learned counsel, further submits, that the learned Single Judge has appreciated the aforesaid fact and taking into consideration the fact that the notice issued by the Certificate Officer is under challenge, is correct in declining to interfere with the certificate proceeding, as such, the order impugned may not be interfered with. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The undisputed fact in this case is that on 05.08.2009 a show cause notice was issued to the appellant/writ petitioner casting liability upon the appellant/writ petitioner and asking the appellant/writ petitioner to reply the same. The appellant/writ petitioner has submitted his reply on 28.08.2009. The concerned competent authority of the State Government adjudicated the same vide letter dated 02.06.2011, whereby and whereunder, a liability of Rs.7,77,000/- has been casted upon the appellant/writ petitioner. Further admitted fact herein is that the liability of Rs.7,77,000/- has never been questioned by the appellant/writ petitioner. The concerned competent authority after taking into consideration the fact that the liability of Rs.7,77,000/- has never been questioned, therefore, requisition had been made before the Certificate Officer for recovery of the said amount, in turn thereof, a certificate proceeding had been initiated being Certificate Case No.21(MC)/2012-13. 6. The concerned competent authority after taking into consideration the fact that the liability of Rs.7,77,000/- has never been questioned, therefore, requisition had been made before the Certificate Officer for recovery of the said amount, in turn thereof, a certificate proceeding had been initiated being Certificate Case No.21(MC)/2012-13. 6. The Certificate Officer issued a notice on 28.04.2014 asking the appellant/writ petitioner to deposit the amount but at that stage, the appellant/writ petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(C) No. 4281 of 2014. The notice had been issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, hereinafter referred to the Act, 1914. The provision of the Act, 1914 stipulates that in order to provide an opportunity of a notice issued under Section 7 thereof, is to file objection as per the provision of Section 9 for its deliberation by the Certificate Officer. Admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner has not filed any objection which was required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 rather the appellant/writ petitioner has directly approached this Court assailing the notice dated 28.04.2014 issued by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No.21(MC)/2012-13. 7. The question herein, is that, the appellant/writ petitioner has not questioned the liability which has been casted upon him for making payment, can he be allowed to challenge the notice directly to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instead of raising the issue by filing an objection before the Certificate Officer? 8. It is not in dispute that the Act, 1914 provides a provision under Section 9 to file objection if any demand is being raised and for realization of the same a notice is being issued under Section 7 of the Act, 1914. The provisions of Sections 7 & 9 of the Act, 1914 are being reproduced as under : “7. Service of notice and copy of certificate on certificate debtor.—When a certificate has been filed in the office of a certificate officer under section 4 or section 6, he shall cause to be served upon the certificate-debt-or, in the prescribed manner, a notice in the prescribed form and a copy of the certificate. 9. Service of notice and copy of certificate on certificate debtor.—When a certificate has been filed in the office of a certificate officer under section 4 or section 6, he shall cause to be served upon the certificate-debt-or, in the prescribed manner, a notice in the prescribed form and a copy of the certificate. 9. Filing of petition denying liability.—(1) The certificate debtor may within thirty days from the service of the notice required by section 7, or where the notice has not been duly served then within thirty days from the execution of any process for enforcing the certificate, present to the Certificate Officer in whose office the certificate is filed or to the Certificate Officer who is executing the certificate, a petition, in the prescribed form, signed and verified in the prescribed manner, denying his liability, in whole or in part. (2) If any such petition is presented to a Certificate Officer other than the Certificate Officer in whose office the original certificate is filed, it shall be sent to the latter officer for disposal.” 9. The appellant/writ petitioner since has directly approached this Court without assailing the original liability instead of filing objection under Section 9 satisfying the Certificate Officer about the incorrectness of liability casted upon him, according to our considered view, the appellant/writ petitioner is liable to make payment or not, depends upon the adjudication by consideration of facts which admittedly would not be appropriate to be adjudicated by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the disputed question of facts involved therein as also the jurisdiction of the writ court, is correct in not interfering with the same reason being that the notice by an authority can only be assailed if it is beyond its jurisdiction as has been held in Siemens Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2006) 12 SCC 33 , wherein at paragraphs-8 & 9, it has been held as under : “8. The question as to whether jurisdictional fact existed for issuance of the said notice, the order passed by the respondent was in question in the said writ petition. 9. The question as to whether jurisdictional fact existed for issuance of the said notice, the order passed by the respondent was in question in the said writ petition. 9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [ (1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943 ], Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse [ (2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826] and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [ (2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2006) 12 Scale 262 ], but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. when a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. (See K.I. Shephard v. Union of India [ (1987) 4 SCC 431 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 438 : AIR 1988 SC 686 ] .) It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice.” 11. This Court in view of the principle and scope of judicial review to make interference with the notice, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, since is not available in the facts and circumstances of the given case as the notice has been questioned on the ground of non-admissibility of the liability which has been casted upon him by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which depends upon the adjudication of the fact, as such, it will not be just and proper for the High Court to exercise the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to delve upon the legality and propriety of the notice impugned wherein the liability has been casted upon the appellant-writ petitioner since the determination of the demand will depend upon the appreciation of the factual aspect even by leading evidence which can well be considered by the Certificate Officer. This Court, upon going across the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has found that considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the notice impugned has been declined to be interfered with, therefore, according to the considered view of this Court, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from any error. 12. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed. 13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.