JUDGMENT : A. Abhishek Reddy, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the entire certificate proceedings initiated by the Certificate Officer, Muzaffarpur being Certificate Case No. 1971 of 2022 with respect to the recovery of Rs. 40,60,212/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Twelve Only) allegedly paid in excess by the Respondents to the Petitioner in respect of P.H. Division Muzaffarpur Agreement Nos. F2-16/2008-09 and F2-18/2008-09; ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the Notice dated 27.01.2023 (Anx P/18) issued by the Certificate Officer, Muzaffarpur for initiating the certificate proceedings against the Petitioner for recovery of Rs. 40,60,212/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Twelve Only); iii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the entire investigation proceeding sought to be initiated against the Petitioner by the Respondents with respect to Agreement Nos. F2-16/2008- 09 and F2-18/2008-09 as being violative of principals of natural justice; iv) to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the Agreement Nos. F2-16/2008-09 and F2-18/2008-09 have determined and that no recover can be effected in view of the fact that the no-objection certificate has been issued by the Respondents; 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was awarded an agreement for diging 264 wells in the year 2008, the petitioner had completed the work in the year 2010 and submitted the final bills. That the security deposit of the petitioner was returned in the year 2012 after expiry of the defect liability period. That the final bills of the petitioners were also paid on 11.03.2014. That in the month of November, 2011, the petitioner lodged an FIR against one Superintendent Engineer which relates to the extortion of the amount from the petitioner towards the 2013 contract. The said Superintendent Engineer with a view to take revenge against the petitioner has issued show cause notice on 16.08.2019 pertaining to the agreement of 2008. Though the petitioner has filed his objections, the authority without conducting any proper inquiry has directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 45,59,590/- stating that the same is recoverable from the petitioner. The said Superintendent Engineer with a view to take revenge against the petitioner has issued show cause notice on 16.08.2019 pertaining to the agreement of 2008. Though the petitioner has filed his objections, the authority without conducting any proper inquiry has directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 45,59,590/- stating that the same is recoverable from the petitioner. Thereafter, the Assistant Engineer vide report dated 25.02.2020 has given a report stating that the errors found were general in nature and there is no manipulation in the work done by the petitioner. However, the superintendent Engineer without any legal basis has deferred from finding of the Assistant Engineer. That on 04.01.2022 and 05.07.2022, the petitioner received notices for recovery of an amount of Rs. 40,60,212/-. That the petitioner thereafter received the demand notice on 30.07.2022 and 27.01.2022 a notice has been served in Certificate Case No. 197 of 2022-23. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the very initiation of the certificate proceedings for the works which were done in the year 2008, that too after final bills were paid, the security deposit returned and after the expiry of the defect liability period in the year 2014 is illegal, bad, time barred, arbitrary exercise of powers and also against the principles of natural justice and equity. Learned counsel has stated that as per Section 65-B of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 the period of limitation is prescribed and the amounts cannot be recovered from the petitioner. Further, it is stated that the inquiry conducted by the Superintendent Engineer fixing a liability of Rs. 40,60,212/- is behind the back of the petitioner as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before the said inquiry was conducted. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Patna High Court reported in (2007) 4 PLJR 590 and (2019) 3 PLJR 446 . Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to allow the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents State has stated that the authority duly finding that the amounts paid to the petitioner were recoverable has passed the impugned order and though a demand notice was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to pay, therefore the Certificate proceedings were initiated. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents State has stated that the authority duly finding that the amounts paid to the petitioner were recoverable has passed the impugned order and though a demand notice was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to pay, therefore the Certificate proceedings were initiated. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has a remedy of filing his objections in the certificate proceedings and based on the objections filed by the petitioner, the final orders will be passed. That the petitioner without filing his objections has straightaway approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. In order to resolve the issue involved in the present writ petition, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, more particularly, Section 65 B which reads as under : 65. Application of the [Limitation Act, 1963]. - (1) Section 6 to 9 of '[the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act no. 36 of 1963) shall not apply to suits, appeals or applications under this Act. (2) Except as declared in sub-section (1), or as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the [limitation Act, 1963], shall apply to all proceedings under this Act as if a certificate filed hereunder were decree of a Civil Court. 7. A learned Single Judge of this High Court in Pawan Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2019) 3 PLJR 446 has held as under:- “Brij Mohan Prasad (supra), a learned coordinate Bench of this Court recorded in paragraph 9 of its judgment as follows: “Certificate proceedings are proceedings for recovery of ascertained dues. It is not a proceeding where the certificate officer is to act like a Civil Court and determine the liability. The liability is, prima facie, pre determined and the proceedings are only for recovery of those pre determined liability. Here in the present case, there have been no proceeding determining the liability of the petitioner. It is not a proceeding where the certificate officer is to act like a Civil Court and determine the liability. The liability is, prima facie, pre determined and the proceedings are only for recovery of those pre determined liability. Here in the present case, there have been no proceeding determining the liability of the petitioner. There being no ascertained legal liability as against the petitioner there could not be a proceeding for its recovery.” Budha Singh (supra) has having considered the relevant provisions, in paragraph 8 of its judgment recorded as under:— “According to Item No. 9, any money payable to a servant of the Government or to any local authority in respect of which person liable to pay the same has agreed by a written instrument that it shall be recoverable as a public demand, will come within the definition of public demand as occurring in Sec.3(6) of the said Act. The money in question is not payable to a servant of the Government or any local authority but to the Governor of Bihar. This apart the Public Demands Recovery Act lays down summary procedure for realisation of money and it requires strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. A certificate is in the nature of decree. This is why Sec.4 of the Act necessitates the satisfaction of the Certificate Officer that money sought to be realised is due. It is in this context that the terms any money in respect of which the person liable to pay the same has agreed have to be considered. The loss mentioned in Para 5 of the agreement in questions in the nature of damages and not an ascertained sum of money nor can it be said that amount is ascertainable on the face of the terms of the agreement. This being the position, the respondents cannot take advantage of the provisions of Item No. 9 of Sch.1 of of the Act. I may, however, observe that the respondents shall be within their rights to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the loss after it is duly ascertained in accordance with law.” 8. Further, this Court in the case of M/s Lal Chand Panna Lal & Ors. I may, however, observe that the respondents shall be within their rights to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the loss after it is duly ascertained in accordance with law.” 8. Further, this Court in the case of M/s Lal Chand Panna Lal & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar reported in (2007) 4 PLJR 590 has held as under: “Section 65 Sub-Section (2) of the P.D.R. Act, 1914 provides : that the provisions of Limitation Act shall apply to all proceedings under this Act as if a certificate filed hereunder were decree of a Civil Court. The limitation as provided is of three years. The requisition for initiating Certificate proceeding was filed on 9.9.2005 much beyond the period of limitation. Inspite of that the Certificate Officer has signed a Certificate under Section 6 of P.D.R. Act that recovery is not barred by any law. This objection raised by the petitioner has not been answered or denied specifically in the counter affidavit. The Certificate proceeding is apparently barred by limitation. If the statute has casted a duty upon the statutory authority to act in a particular manner, he must act in that manner only, and his act must be justifiable under the provisions of the Act. The applicability of the Limitation Act under the P.D.R. Act makes it obligatory for the Certificate Officer to verify before issuance of Certificate that the certificate proceeding is not barred by limitation.” 9. Having regard to the above, the initiation of the certificate proceedings against the petitioner after a lapse of more than 14 years is barred by limitation and therefore, liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. 10. The present C.W.J.C. stand allowed, however, without costs.