Dismissed

Raju Kumar @ Raj Kishore Verma v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Jun 2016CWJC/8274/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that the procedural defect in the Notice issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, was rectified by the District Magistrate. The petition was accordingly dismissed and the petitioner directed to file objections under Section 9 within 12.7.2016.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioner is directed to file objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, by 12.7.2016.

Raju Kumar @ Raj Kishore Verma Vs The State Of Bihar… — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8274 of 2016

¶3

=========================================================== Raju Kumar @ Raj Kishore Verma son of Kameshwar Prasad Verma Director of Maa Saraswati Modern Rice Mill Private Limited resident of village- Bhagwatipur, P.O.- Wazidpur, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, District Patna.

¶7

The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies, Corporatio Limited its M.D. Bihar at Patna.

¶8

The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Limited, Patna, District Patna

¶9

The District Certificated Officer, Danapur, District- Patna.

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s

¶11

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

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. SHEO SHANKAR PRASAD, SC-10 For the B.S.F.C. : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶13

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-06-2016

¶14

Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Patna as well as the District Certificate Officer, Danapur, District-Patna. Let it be kept on record.

¶15

Heard Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh for the petitioner, counsel for the State and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh for the Corporation.

¶16

The petitioner while questioning the validity of the proceedings arising out of Certificate Case No. 2 of 2014-15 has raised grievance that the enclosure to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) impugned at Annexure-6 though makes a reference to the certificate issued under Sections 4 and 6 of

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.8274 of 2016 dt.24-06-2016

¶18

¶19

‘the Act’ but the enclosure is a requisition under Section 5 present at Annexure-6/A. It is in consideration to the issue raised that the District Magistrate, Patna was directed to take notice of the procedural ignorance by the District Certificate Officer, Danapur, District-Patna and file a counter affidavit which has since been filed and until further orders, the proceedings in Certificate Case No. 2 of 2014-15 was directed to remain stayed.

¶20

A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate, Patna and who in context with the issue framed by this Court has made statement vide paragraph-5 that the District Certificate Officer has rectified his mistakes and has also taken corrective measures by issuing fresh notice under Section 7 of ‘the Act’ enclosing the certificate, a copy of which is present at Annexure-A series which has also been communicated to the petitioner for filing his objection under Section 9 of ‘the Act’. The notice issued on 13.6.2016 and its receipt is admitted by Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh appearing for the petitioner. The District Magistrate has also discussed the measures taken by him for updating the Officers discharging functions of Certificate Officers on the lawful procedure required to be followed in a proceeding arising under ‘the Act’ and its stringent nature and which is manifest from the enclosures at Annexure-B and C to the counter affidavit.

¶21

In the circumstances discussed, where the infirmity whatsoever occurring in the proceedings stands rectified vide

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.8274 of 2016 dt.24-06-2016

¶23

¶24

Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit, I find no reason to keep the writ petition pending which is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file his objection under Section 9 of ‘the Act’ and since the notice under Section 7 has been issued on 13.6.2016, petitioner would be well advised to file his reply by 12.7.2016, failing which the District Certificate Officer, Danapur, District-Patna would be at liberty to proceed and dispose of the certificate case in accordance with law.

¶25

It goes without saying that the petitioner would cooperate in the proceedings and would not adopt dilatory attitude and in the event of the petitioner trying to delay the proceedings, the District Certificate Officer, Danapur, District-Patna may proceed to dispose of the matter accordingly after recording his reasons for disposal and by a speaking order.

¶26

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶27

S.Sb/-

¶28

NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	30.06.2016
Transmission Date

Raju Kumar @ Raj Kishore Verma v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Kumar @ Raj Kishore Verma 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

Madhu Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Parmanand Mandal Vs The State Clection Commission Panchayat and Ors.

Ram Vinay Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt.Kumud Sahu Choudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Shivalaya Construction and Suppliers and Ors. Vs The H D F C Bank Ltd. and Ors.