The Patna High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed an order rejecting objections to recovery of money as a public demand. The court held that without a written agreement, such demands do not constitute public demand under the Act.
The impugned order dated 10.09.2012 in Certificate Case No. 04 of 2011 is quashed.
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.11094 of 2016
=========================================================== Gopal Agrawal, son of Tarachand Agarwal @ Tarachand Dhanuka, resident of Dukbangla Road, P.O. & P.S. Thakurganj, District Kishanganj (Bihar)
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Respondents
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Raju Giri,
Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Harish Kumar, GP 8
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 24-04-2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
following reliefs --
“(i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction, in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 10.09.2012 passed in Case No. 04/2011-2012 by the District Certificate Officer, Kishanganj by which objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been rejected and it has been held that Rs. 44,625/- (Forty Four Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Five Only) is recoverable from the petitioner as Public Demand as contained in Annexure-3.
(ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.11094 of 2016 dt.24-04-2018
2/4
Respondents not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner.
(iii) To any other relief or reliefs for which the Petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.11094 of 2016 dt.24-04-2018
3/4
any relief. It is further submitted that in any event, remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner against the impugned order.
“The argument of Mr. Giri regarding absence of any agreement in between the parties to the effect that the facility of Body Guard would be conditional upon payment of cost goes uncontested. Although an order to such effect that the facility extended is upon payment of cost does exist but such order has not been translated into any kind of agreement in between the parties casting an obligation on the petitioner not only to make payment thereof but also that any arrears arising therefrom would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the ‘Act’. Law is well settled and unless the demands so raised falls within the definition of a ‘Public Demand’ as provided under Section 3(6) of the ‘Act’ and/or there is any agreement in between the parties, by a written instrument which inter alia provides that any sum found due would be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the ‘Act’ the party
Patna High Court CWJC No.11094 of 2016 dt.24-04-2018
4/4
complaining cannot take recourse to the summary proceedings provided under the ‘Act’ for recovery of the amount. On this limited score the entire proceedings arising from Certificate Case No. 5 of 2011-12 including the order dated 10.09.2012 impugned at Annexure 3 passed by the District Certificate Officer, Kishanganj cannot be upheld and is accordingly set aside.”
(Vikash Jain, J)
B.T/Chandran
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| Uploading Date |
01.05.2018 |
| Transmission Date |
N.A. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the availability of an alternative remedy by way of appeal bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction if the authorities acted without jurisdiction.
Whether the demand raised constitutes a public demand under Section 3(6) of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 in the absence of a written agreement.
Whether the Certificate Case proceedings and the impugned order can be upheld when there is no written instrument providing for recovery as arrears of land revenue.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tarachand Agarwal @ Tarachand Dhanuk Vs. The State of Bihar & orsFollowed¶33
Tarachand Agarwal @ Tarachand Dhanuk Vs. The State of Bihar & ors (CWJC No. 1418 of 2013 dt. 30.11.2015)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gopal Agrawal
State of Bihar
District Magistrate, Kishanganj
Superintendent of Police, Kishanganj
District Certificate Officer, Kishanganj
Sergeant Major, Police Centre, Kishanganj
Vikash Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
