The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of a certificate proceeding and notice for recovery of public funds, directing petitioners to exhaust statutory remedies under the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act before approaching the Court.
None granted; petitioners directed to exhaust statutory remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16608 of 2014
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP18
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
following relief prayed in this writ application:
“i) For issuance of an appropriate writ preferably in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 4.2.2012, issued to petitioners Certificate Debtor for recovery of Rs.15,72,480/- (fifteen lac seventy two thousand four hundred eighty).
ii) For quashing the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No. 01 of 2011-12.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the aforementioned prayer had initially tried to question the jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer in initiating the certificate proceeding by taking a plea that the amount of plantation was not recoverable by way of certificate proceeding.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16608 of 2014 (3) dt.13-10-2014
2
This Court would find it difficult to accede to such submission, especially when it is a Government money and the petitioners were given such amount for plantation by way of advance. The Government, therefore, has every right to recovery such amount from the petitioners in terms of Clause 8A of Schedule I.
Learned counsel for the petitioners had then submitted that the petitioners were not in fault and in fact the procedure meant for plantation was being followed by the petitioners. These are the matter of evidence and for that the proper recourse could be by way of getting the matter adjudicated under section 9 in form of disposal of the objection or an appeal under section 60 or a revision under section 62 under the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act. These statutory remedies have to be held to be self sufficient which would automatically bar the jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the writ application. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sawar Mal Choudhary & ors. v. State Bank of India & ors., reported in 1986 PLJR 660.
That being so, while this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, it would still leave the petitioners to exhaust the statutory alternative remedy by way of getting its objection
Patna High Court CWJC No.16608 of 2014 (3) dt.13-10-2014
3
decided under section 9 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in fact has submitted that the petitioners have already filed objection before the Certificate Officer.
If that be so, the Certificate Officer shall dispose of the objection filed by the petitioners if it has not been done till date. In other words, if the objection had already been decided by the Certificate Officer, the remedy for the petitioners is only by way
of appeal and/or revision under section 60/62 of the Act.
With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)
surendra/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ to quash the certificate proceeding and notice issued for recovery of public money.
Whether the statutory remedies available under the Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act bar the writ管辖.
The proper course for the petitioners where objection under section 9 is pitched or appeal/revision under sections 60/62 applies.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sawar Mal Choudhary & ors. v. State Bank of India & ors.Referred¶22
Sawar Mal Choudhary & ors. v. State Bank of India & ors.
5 provisions across 5 enactments
Kumari Shweta Sinha
Anjana
The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Nalanda
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda
The Special Programme Officer, Nalanda
The Block Programme officer, Hilsa, Nalanda
Mihir Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
