Disposed

Sudhanshu Bhushan Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC8 Jul 2014CWJC/9371/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash the entire certificate proceedings based on alleged service defects and belated objection. It directed the Certificate Officer to dispose of the belated objection within three months but affirmed the officer's power to realize dues.

What did the court decide?

Certificate Officer directed to pass order on belated objection within three months after affording opportunity of hearing.

Sudhanshu Bhushan Ram Vs the State of Bihar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9371 of 2008

¶2

====================================================== Sudhanshu Bhushan Ram s/o Late Biro Ram, r/o Village Kasimpur, P.O. Abjuganj, Police Station-Sultanganj, District Bhagalpur.

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Bihar.

¶6

2.The Managing Director cum District Co-operative officer-cum-The Certificate Officer, Munger.

¶7

3.The General Manager, Munger, Jamui Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Munger.

¶8

.... .... Respondent/s

¶9

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

¶10

5 08-07-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ

¶12

application reads as follows:-

¶13

“For issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 06.02.2007 in Case No. 01/2006 arising out of Certificate Case No. 65 of 2004 passed by the Respondent Certificate Officer, Munger by which the petitioner’s petition under section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act has most arbitrarily been dismissed.

¶14

That issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction for quashing the order of registering/entering the Certificate Case No. 65/04 (date not mentioned) the exparte order dated 12.01.2005 and the entire proceeding of certificate Case No. 65/04. By which the certificate case has been instituted, and the D/W has been issued by the respondent certificate officer without service of notice under section 7 of the P.D.R. Act and determining the genuineness of the claim of the certificate holder, the maintainability of the certificate case against the petitioner.

¶15

For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondent to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner confining the petitioner in prison for a period of more than 6 months and thereafter most arbitrarily continuing the proceeding of the Certificate Case No. 65 of 2004.

¶16

For issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction for legal initiation of appropriate action and

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.9371 of 2008 (5) dt.08-07-2014

¶18

¶19

criminal prosecution of the concerned respondent for wrongfully confining and illegally detaining the petitioner in jail custody in a gross violation of the mandatory provision of law.”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has basically concentrated on the aspect that the certificate proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide Certificate Case No. 65 of 2004 pending before the Managing Director cum District Co-operative Officer-cum-Certificate Officer is vitiated on the ground of violation of the various provisions of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He has further submitted that from the entire ordersheet of the certificate proceedings annexed with this writ application it would appear that the Certificate Officer was not even regularly conducting the proceeding nor even fixing dates in the certificate case of the petitioner in the prescribed manner.

¶21

This Court on perusal of records and specially from the ordersheet dated 25.09.2006 would find that the

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.9371 of 2008 (5) dt.08-07-2014

¶23

¶24

notices under Section-7 of the Recovery Act was served upon the petitioner and in fact the proceeding has progressed further when the Certificate Officer had found that within the prescribed period of one month, no petition under Section-9 of the Act was filed by the petitioner. The plea that the Certificate Officer ought to have waited for the filing of the objection by the petitioner or the plea that notice under Section-7 of the Act was not served on the petitioner cannot be substantiated at least from the ordersheet on the basis of which it is found that it was the petitioner who himself was avoiding his appearance on a number of dates. In fact only after the Certificate Officer was convinced that the petitioner was not even prepared to deposit the amount of certificate dues, he had taken coercive steps including issuance of warrant of arrest of the petitioner.

¶25

The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an objection under Section-9 of the Act was filed by the petitioner on 25.09.2006 has to be also

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.9371 of 2008 (5) dt.08-07-2014

¶27

¶28

understood in the context that it was only after the petitioner taken into custody that he had filed his so called objection petition. As noted above Section-9 of the Act prescribes the period of one month from the date of service of notice under Section-7 for filing of the objection under Section-9 of the Act. The much delayed filing of the alleged objection on 25.09.2006 by the petitioner under Section-9 of the Act, therefore, cannot be a ground for quashing the entire certificate proceedings.

¶29

Nonetheless, the petitioner had filed objection, though belatedly and, therefore, this Court keeping in view that this writ application has remained pending for a period of more than seven years with an interim order restraining any coercive action against the petitioner would in order to meet the ends of justice direct the Certificate Officer to pass an order on the objection filed by the petitioner under section-9 dated 25.09.2006 within a period of three months from the date of receipt

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.9371 of 2008 (5) dt.08-07-2014

¶31

¶32

of this order by him after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner, if he chooses to appear either by himself or through his counsel. The petitioner if aggrieved by such order under Section-10 of the Act may take recourse under Sections- 60 and 62 of the Act by way of appeal and revision prescribed in the Act.

¶33

Nothwithstanding, the steps being taken by the petitioner against the order under Section-10, the Certificate Officer will be at liberty to take action for realization of the amount of certificate dues from the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶34

With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of.

¶35

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶36

Ranjan/U

Sudhanshu Bhushan Ram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhanshu Bhushan Ram 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

Akhauri Dharma Bardhan Sinha Vs Allahabad Bank and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt. Ranjan Devi Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Micro Ranjan Constructionplt Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Basuki Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sudha Tiwary Vs the Life Insurance of India andO