Allowed

Sunil Das v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Jul 2014CWJC/11917/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil writ petition, the Patna High Court allowed the application seeking quashing of a warrant of arrest issued under the Public Demand Recovery Act. The Court held the impugned orders bad in law and fact due to lack of opportunity to object, granting the petitioner time to file an objection.

What did the court decide?

Quashed orders from 29.12.2012 onwards; granted petitioner two months to file objection under Section 9; prohibited coercive action till objection is decided.

Sunil Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11917 of 2014

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sunil Das, son of late Beso Das, resident of village Abhaipur (Mahe), P.S. Piri Bazar, District Lakhisarai

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar

¶7

The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai 3. The Zlila Parishad, Surajgarha, Lakhisarai 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Lakhisarai

¶8

The Block Development Officer, Surajgarha, Lakhisarai

¶9

The Certificate Officer, Lakhisarai

¶10

The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kaswa Surajgarha, Lakhisarai

¶11

The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Kaswa Surajgarha, Lakhisarai .... .... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance :

¶13

For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Sushmita Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Neelu Agrawal, GA6

¶14

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶15

2 16-07-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application:-

¶16

"For quashing of notice issued under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act as also for quashing of the order dated 24.09.2013 by which warrant of arrest has been issued upon the petitioner without complying the mandatory provisions of the PDR Act."

¶17

This Court on perusal of materials on record as well as

¶18

hearing learned counsel for the parties is satisfied that the impugned order passed by Certificate Officer, Lakhisarai on 9.9.2011/ 29.12.2012 is bad on fact and in law.

¶19

Let it be noted that on 9.8.2011 while issuing notice to

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.11917 of 2014 (2) dt.16-07-2014

¶21

¶22

the petitioner in terms of section 7 of the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and fixing the date of 9.9.2011, the Certificate Officer himself had given an opportunity to the petitioner to file an objection under Section 9 of the Act. Nothing however is there on record to show as to what happened on 9.9.2011/ 29.12.2012 and yet all of a sudden on 29.12.2012 merely on the basis of recording that the notices u/s 7 of the Act was already served on the petitioner, the warrant of arrest was issued. If such be the approach of the Certificate Officer, the entire certificate proceedings from 29.12.2012 would automatically stand vitiated inasmuch as by now it is well settled that whenever a notice under section 7 of the Act is issued an effective opportunity has to be given to the certificate debtor by way of filing his objection and explaining his case as to whether he is at all liable or to what extent his liability can be fastened.

¶23

Nothing of this sort has been done in the present case and the very fact that on the next date of issuance of notice under section 7 of the Act an order for issuance of warrant of arrest was passed which was further reiterated on 9.3.2013/ 23.7.2013, this Court will have no difficulty to quash different orders on or after 29.12.2012 passed by the Certificate Officer.

¶24

At this stage Ms. Sushmita Mishra learned counsel for

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.11917 of 2014 (2) dt.16-07-2014

¶26

¶27

the petitioner has sought to highlight that the certificate dues is actually not payable by the petitioner in view of certain decision of Government of India.

¶28

In the considered opinion of this Court even this aspect of the matter had to be raised by the petitioner before the Certificate Officer in his objection which could have been filed by the petitioner, had the order for warrant of arrest not been issued against him.

¶29

Be that as it may, this Court would give two months time from today to the petitioner to appear before the Certificate Officer and file his objection under section 9 of the Act which will be decided on its own merits by the Certificate Officer without being prejudiced in any manner by anything said in this order. It is also made clear that till such an objection under Section 9 is decided by the Certificate Officer no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner

¶30

It also goes without saying that if any adverse order is passed by the Certificate Officer against the petitioner under section 9 of the Act he will have a remedy of appeal under sections 60 and further by way of revision 62 of the Act against such order.

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.11917 of 2014 (2) dt.16-07-2014

¶32

¶33

With the aforementioned observation and direction, this

¶34

application is disposed of.

¶35

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶36

surendra/-
U

Sunil Das v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Das v. The State Of Bihar 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

Mithilesh Kumar Giri Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chandra Mani Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Neelam Prasad Vs The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Mithlesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Braj Nandan Prasad Rai and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.