IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14842 of 2005
Sanjiv Kumar Singh, son of late Ramasha Singh, resident of village Rajaura
Akhtiyarpur, P.S. Muffasil, District Begusarai.
.... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Agriculture Development Branch, S.B.I. through Branch Officer,
Manjhaul, Begusarai
3. The District Certificate Officer, Begusarai
...Respondents
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Bank : Mrs. Namrata Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Grijesh Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G. 1
—–
05/ 03.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for
the following reliefs :-
(i) A certiorari setting aside the order dated 18.11.2003
passed by the respondent-Certificate Officer, Begusarai
in Certificate Case No. 21/97-98 as contained in
Annexure 2 by which the petitioner’s name was
substituted on behalf of the certificate debtor and
neither giving prior notice to him after a expiry of 31
months nor condonation of delay.
(ii) certiorari setting aside the order dated 5.6.2005 passed
by the Certificate Officer, Begusarai, whereby and
whereunder the warrant of arrest has been issued
against the petitioner.
(iii) For issuance of appropriate order/orders
direction/directions to the respondents concern to not
disturb the petitioner without any valid reasons.
(iv) For any other relief/reliefs for which this Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
-2-
the case as stated hereinbelow.
3, From the arguments raised by learned counsel for
the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent
that Certificate Case No. 21 of 1997-98 was instituted against one
Ramasha Singh, father of the petitioner, who subsequently died and
his heirs, including the petitioner, were substituted in the certificate
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said
substitution was made without any notice or information to the
petitioner.
4. However, it is an admitted fact that notice under
section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914
(hereinafter referred to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity) was issued
by the Certificate Officer in the aforesaid case to the petitioner, which
was served upon him as is apparent from order dated 15.06.2005
passed in the aforesaid certificate case. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
an objection under section 9 of the Act, which was rejected by the
Certificate Officer on 11.08.2005. Hence the said order having been
passed under section 10 of the Act, specific provision of appeal is
made under section 60 of the Act.
5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is
disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the
appellate authority provided under the Act. If such an appeal is filed
by the petitioner before the said authority within fifteen days from
today along with all the requisites and a copy of this order as well as
an interlocutory application for condoning the delay, the said authority
-3-
shall consider the delay caused due to the pendency of this writ
petition for a long period and shall decide the appeal on merit in
accordance with law expeditiously. However, if the petitioner wants
any interim relief, he will be at liberty to file an interlocutory
application for the same before the appellate authority, who shall
pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)