Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 828 (JHR)

Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-07-03

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Certificate Case no.2287 of 2022-23 including the notice dated 17th November, 2022 issued under the signature of the District Certificate Officer, Palamau- respondent no.6 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,95,44,228.50 from the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in letter no.68 dated 15th March, 2023 issued under the signature of the respondent no.6, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit at least 25% of the certificate amount before 27th March, 2023 through challan. The petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the certificate proceeding under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 1914’) can only be initiated for recovery of such claims/demands, which fall within the definition of ‘public demand’ as provided under Section 3(6) of the said Act. 2. The petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No.4523 of 2023 seeking amendment in the writ petition, primarily challenging the order dated 27th April, 2023 passed by the respondent no.6 in Certificate Case no.2287 of 2022-23, whereby, while rejecting the petitioner’s objection, he has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,95,44,228.50 in maximum five instalments of 15 days each against shortfall of 9533.77 quintals of paddy with respect to Haidernagar PAACS, P.S. Haidernagar, District Palamau. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that issuance of order dated 27th April, 2023 is subsequent to filing of the present writ petition, I.A. No.4523 of 2023 is treated to be the part of the writ petition. 4. Mr. Abhinay Kumar, learned A.C. to G.A.I and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4 jointly raise objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has the efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal against the order dated 27th April, 2023 passed by the respondent no.6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the certificate proceeding initiated against the petitioner is itself not maintainable in absence of any agreement executed between him and the concerned authority of the State. Moreover, the nature of demand made against the petitioner also does not fall under Schedule I of the Act, 1914. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the certificate proceeding initiated against the petitioner is itself not maintainable in absence of any agreement executed between him and the concerned authority of the State. Moreover, the nature of demand made against the petitioner also does not fall under Schedule I of the Act, 1914. 6. As against the said submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that the aforesaid demand is covered under Entry 8A, Schedule I of the Act, 1914 and, therefore, initiation of certificate proceeding against the petitioner for realization of the aforesaid demand is maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4, while explaining the procedure of procurement of paddy under the concerned scheme, submits that Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation gives advance to concerned PAACS for purchase/procurement of paddy from cultivators. The said procured paddy is, thereafter, lifted from the concerned PAACS by the rice mill owners through transport agents. After preparation of custom milled rice (CMR), the rice mill owners send the same to the FCI godowns from where the CMR is distributed to the beneficiaries through public distribution system. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the issue of maintainability of the writ petition. This Court is of the view that initiation of certificate proceeding against the petitioner for recovery of the aforesaid amount cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the same is maintainable, as it has been alleged against the petitioner that he has committed irregularity in proper up-keeping of paddy and has sold the same in open market, thereby finding him responsible for shortfall of 9533.50 quintals of paddy. Entry 8-A, Schedule I of the Act, 1914 reads as under:- “8-A. Any outstanding loans and advances payable to State Government or to a Department or Official of the State Government by any body whatsoever.” 9. On perusal of Entry 8-A, Schedule I of the Act, 1914, it would be evident that the said entry speaks of loan and advance payable to the State or its functionaries. Money in form of loan and advance given by the Government to a person implies that the same is required to be refunded or returned or repaid by him. On perusal of Entry 8-A, Schedule I of the Act, 1914, it would be evident that the said entry speaks of loan and advance payable to the State or its functionaries. Money in form of loan and advance given by the Government to a person implies that the same is required to be refunded or returned or repaid by him. Thus the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner through certificate proceeding certainly comes within the ambit of Entry 8-A of Schedule 1 of the said Act. 10. Moreover, since the respondent no.6 has already passed the order under Section 10 of the Act, 1914 pursuant to an objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on merit, considering that he has the efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal under Section 60 of the said Act. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed being not maintainable with a liberty to the petitioner to take statutory recourse of appeal against the order dated 27th April, 2023 passed by the respondent no.6 in Certificate Case no.2287 of 2022-23. 12. I.A. No.4523 of 2023 is disposed of, whereas I.A. No.4661 of 2023 is dismissed.