Quashed

Central Coalfields Limited through Its Project Officer Sri Ajay Kumar B Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC8 Nov 2019WPC/1981/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging an order by the Certificate Officer rejecting an objection under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, the Court held that the authority was obligated to consider the filed objection despite non-appearance and could not reject the case without addressing the merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.02.2018 is quashed, and the matter is remitted to the Certificate Officer to pass a fresh order within three months considering the filed objection and the Requisitioning O

Central Coalfields Limited through Its Project… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1981 of 2018

¶3

----

¶4

Central Coalfields Limited

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh 3. District Mining Officer, Ramgarh 4. Certificate Officer (Mining), Hazaribagh

¶9

… … Respondents

¶10

----

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶12

---- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Das, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Chanchal Jain, A.C. to A.G.

¶13

Order No. 06 : Dated 8^th November, 2019

¶14

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Certificate Officer (Mining), Hazaribagh in Certificate Case No.01/2017-18 has been assailed whereby and whereunder, according to the petitioner, without considering the objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, the objection has been rejected.

¶15

2. Mr. A.K.Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1914), the petitioner has put his appearance as also filed objection as required under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. The Certificate Officer has called upon a report from the Requisitioning Officer vide order dated 20.09.2017 and the matter was posted awaiting the said report. Upto the order dated 06.01.2018, report has not been

¶16

-2-

¶17

received before the Certificate Officer and waiting for the same, the case was posted on 28.01.2018 but the date for further hearing has been preponed from 28.01.2018 to that of 17.01.2018 showing therein that the report has been received giving therein parawise response to the objections filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 by the petitioner.

¶18

It is the further case of the petitioner that without intimating the further date fixed therein, the matter has been proceeded and ultimately on 22.02.2018 making therein observation about non-appearance of the petitioner on 01.02.2018, 15.02.2018 and 22.02.2018 the impression has been gathered by the Certificate Officer that the petitioner has nothing to say and accordingly the objection has been rejected.

¶19

It has further been contended by referring to statement made at paragraph 6 to the writ petition that on 28.01.2018, the date fixed vide order dated 06.01.2018, the petitioner has approached to the office of the Certificate Officer to put his appearance but he has not been shown the record, rather, he has been informed that the next date would be communicated but no such date has been communicated.

¶20

Further submission has been made that even accepting that there is no appearance but since objection has been filed, as such, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner has nothing to say and in that situation, after noting down his non-appearance, it was incumbent upon the Certificate Officer to decide on the basis of the objection vis-à-vis the parawise reply but in no stretch of imagination it can be understood that when the objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 is available on

¶21

-3-

¶22

record, the petitioner is having no objection with respect to the debt.

¶23

3. Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned A.C. to A.G., appearing for the respondent State has submitted by fairly accepting that when the date was fixed on 28.01.2018 it ought to have been heard on 28.01.2018 and in any case the decision, if any, has been taken for its preponement, it should have been communicated to the petitioner and therefore, he has submitted that since that part is not available, as such he has sought for time to seek instruction.

¶24

4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and before entering into the legality and propriety of the decision and the action of the Certificate Officer, this Court deems it fit and proper first to deal with the contention of the learned State counsel as to whether it is a case of granting time or not.

¶25

As has been submitted by Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the State that when the date has been fixed on 28.01.2018, the next hearing ought to have been done on 28.01.2018 and in case of preponement of the date, a notice ought to have been issued and whether it has been issued or not, he seeks time to verify but the question is that even if the time would be allowed to him it will not serve any purpose as because even if the contention of Mr. Jain would be accepted, then also the Certificate Officer since acting as quasi-judicial authority in discharge of his statutory accountability as per the power conferred under the statute i.e. Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 and it is not in dispute that in a proceeding either quasi-judicial or

¶26

-4-

¶27

judicial, the order-sheet is to be maintained and even if the date has been preponed, it ought to have been reflected from the order-sheet but as would appear from page 37 of the brief, wherein the reference of posting of the case is 28.01.2018 vide order passed in this regard on 06.01.2018 but in the very next paragraph the order is of 17.01.2018 and as such, there is no reason to accept that any notice has been issued to communicate about preponement of the date and hence, this Court deems it fit and proper not to adjourn the matter giving time to seek clarification in this regard.

¶28

5. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner has filed objection as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 in terms of the notice issued under Section 7 thereof.

¶29

Section 9 of the Act, 1914 reflects to provide an opportunity to file an objection by the debtor against whom the requisition has been made by the Requisitioning Officer.

¶30

Section 10 of the Act, 1914 provides an opportunity of hearing for leading evidence or calling upon documents, if any, meaning thereby, if any objection would be filed in terms of the provision of Section 9, hearing is to be done under Section 10 of the Act, 1914 and thereafter, declaration to the effect that the debt is liable to be cleared by the certificate debtor.

¶31

After filing of the objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, the Certificate Officer has called upon a report from the Requisitioning Officer to furnish parawise reply and the matter has been posted day by

¶32

-5-

¶33

day waiting for the report but no report has been furnished up till 06.01.2018 and therefore, waiting for the report, the matter was posted for 28.01.2018. There is no date as of 28.01.2018, rather, the matter was posted on 17.01.2018 wherein the reference of receipt of report as contained in letter No.59 dated 16.01.2018 has been referred and accordingly, the matter was posted on 01.02.2018.

¶34

6. As has been said by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 28.01.2018 he has gone there to put his appearance and he was informed that he would be communicated about the next date but no communication has been made.

¶35

Since this Court has not called upon the other side to furnish a reply, therefore, without entering into this controversy, the Court, after going across the order dated 22.02.2018, has found that the Certificate Officer has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has nothing to say about his liability which has been casted by the Requisitioning Officer in terms of a public demand.

¶36

7. The question is that when a notice has been issued under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 and in terms thereof, an objection has been filed, even if the petitioner has not put his appearance, it was incumbent upon the Certificate Officer to pass an order taking into consideration the objection.

¶37

8. Consideration of objection means that after dealing with the objection which is to be reflected from the face of the order, but no such reflection about consideration of objection is available in the order dated

¶38

-6-

¶39

22.02.2018, rather, the authority has said that since the petitioner has not put his appearance on 01.02.2018, 15.02.2018 and 22.02.2018, as such, it has been presumed that the petitioner has nothing to say.

¶40

It might be a situation that the petitioner might not have put his appearance but when the objection is there, it has to be dealt with by the Certificate Officer before coming to the conclusive finding on merit.

¶41

9. In view thereof, this Court is of the view that the Certificate Officer has not acted in right perspective while passing the order dated 22.02.2018 as also in preponing the date from 28.01.2018 to 17.01.2018 without making any communication in this regard to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 22.02.2018 is not sustainable in the eye of law as such, the same is quashed.

¶42

The matter is remitted before the Certificate Officer to pass an order in accordance with law after taking into consideration of the objection already filed by the petitioner vis-à-vis the parawise reply submitted by the Requisitioning Officer within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶43

11. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶44

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶45

Birendra/

Central Coalfields Limited through Its Project Officer Sri Ajay Kumar B Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Coalfields Limited through Its Project Officer Sri Ajay Kumar B Singh v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Raghubir Tiwary Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through D C And Ors.

Jay Shankar Yadav Vs Bhoila Yadav

Koyalo Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Abhay Shankar Prasad Vs Union of India through the Director General

Miss Shivangi Tiwari And Anr. Represented Through Their Mohter Mrs Gayatri Tiwary Vs Education

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its C M D