Remanded

Ms G K C Project Ltd. Through Project Manager a Suresh Babu v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC18 Apr 2018WPC/1089/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court set aside an ex-parte order confirming a certificate and directing payment. The order was remanded to the Certificate Officer to pass a reasoned decision after hearing parties and considering a filed petition under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.09.2016 set aside and matter remanded to Certificate Officer to pass a reasoned order after hearing parties.

Ms G K C Project Ltd. Through Project… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1089 of 2017

¶2

M/s. G.K.C. Project Ltd. through, Project Manager, A. Suresh Babu, son of A. Radhakrishna, resident of at present Surajdeo Nagar, Harshvihar Colony, P.O. & P.s. Saraidhela, DistrictDhanbad. ….. Petitioner -V e r s u s-

¶3

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶4

2.The Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, at Nepal House, P.O.& P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi 3.The Certificate Officer, Mines-cum-Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, P.O., P.S & District-Dumka 4.The District Mining Officer, Jamtara, P.O., P.S. & DistrictJamtara ….. Respondents

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶6

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Verma , Advocate For the Respondents : J.C.to A.G

¶7

2/18.04.2018 This case was filed on 21.02.2017, after serving a notice to the State. Till date no counter affidavit has been filed. In view of the nature of order which I intend to pass in this case and since this is a writ of certiorari, where an affidavit cannot supplement a quasijudicial order, this writ application is disposed without insisting for counter-affidavit.

¶8

The petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.09.2016 contained in Memo No. 9 by which the Certificate Officer has confirmed the certificate amount and has directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 89,03,833.00/- in respect of Certificate Case No. 2/2014-15.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear on 29.09.2016 as a result of which the ex-parte order has been passed, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.89,03,833.00/-, after confirming the certificate. He submits that order is absolutely cryptic and no reason has been assigned by the Certificate Officer. He lastly submits that since the order is unreasoned one, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶10

J.C. to A.G appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner did not appear on 29.09.2016, which was the date fixed, thus the Certificate Officer had got no alternative than to pass the order in absence of the petitioner. She further submits that this order is appealable.

¶11

After hearing the parties and after going through the impugned order, I find that the petitioner did not appear on

¶12

29.09.2016 as a result of which the impugned order was passed directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 89, 03,833.00/after confirmation of the certificate by the Certificate Officer. From the impugned order, I also find that no reason has been assigned as to how the Certificate Officer has concluded that the petitioner is entitled to pay the aforesaid amount. It is also evident from the order that since the certificate holder claimed that the petitioner is entitled to pay Rs. 89,03,833.00/-., the Certificate officer has also concluded on the submission of the certificate holder that the petitioner is entitled to pay the aforesaid amount. It is also apparent from the impugned order that the petitioner had filed petition under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, denying his liability but nothing has been discussed about the same in the impugned order, nor the grounds mentioned therein was considered.

¶13

The Certificate officer, even if the certificate debtor is absent, has to consider the objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 and then come to an independent finding giving reasons as to why he rejects the objection under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914.

¶14

Thus, in view of the aforesaid position the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Certificate Officer is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Certificate Officer. The petitioner along with certified copy of this order will appear before the Certificate Officer on or before 19^th May, 2018. The Certificate Officer thereafter will fix a date and will pass a reasoned order after hearing both the parties, after taking into consideration the petition under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 filed by the petitioner. If the petitioner does not appear on or before 19^th May, 2018 or in any subsequent date fixed by the Certificate Officer, the Certificate Officer is free to pass an order in absence of the petitioner as per law.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations this writ application stands disposed of.

¶16

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶17

Amar/cp2

Ms G K C Project Ltd. Through Project Manager a Suresh Babu v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms G K C Project Ltd. Through Project Manager a Suresh Babu v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Veena Chandra Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Guddu Gupta Alias Guddu Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Zubair Ahmad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gurrudut Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chand Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand