Anwar Ali vs State of Bihar and Others

P.K. Deb, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.

The point involved in this writ petition is as to the validity of the liability of the Petitioner to pay a loss allegedly incurred by the Respondent No. 2 through certificate proceeding being certificate case No. 200 of 2002. Admittedly the Petitioner entered into an agreement with the Respondent-Corporation for purchase of Kendu leaves and there was a time frame within the agreement itself for collection of Kendu leaves by the Petitioner from the go-downs but according to the Petitioner as the Corporation authorities did not proceed in proper forum the Petitioner was not in a position to collect the Kendu leaves from the go-downs and, as such, the whole liability of the loss incurred by the Corporation cannot be thrushed upon the Petitioner. On the other hand it is the contention of the Corporation that as per Clause 11 of the agreement within the time frame the Petitioner did not collect Kendu leaves from the godown and suo motu the Corporation had extended the time and informed the Petitioner to collect but still then he did not respond and, as such, the Corporation had no other alternative but to get the Kendu leaves sold in auction and in such auction sale the Corporation had suffered a less which according to the Forest Act is to be borne by the purchaser i.e. the Petitioner in the present case. On this point practically there is no denial that if the loss is incurred due to the fault of the Petitioner, then liability can be fastened on him. But the liability as fixed or thrushed by the Corporation has been denied by showing various grounds from the side of the Petitioner and those have been denied from the side of the Corporation by filing counter affidavit. Practically those are disputed points of fact which cannot be decided by this writ court. Although there is some limitation of the Certificate Officer to decide all points but still when liability has been denied then if objection has been filed in proper form as per Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act then the Certificate Officer can decide it after doing a proper investigation of the matter by giving opportunity to adduce evidence by both the parties and on production of proper documents. This point has been conceded by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. In that way it is hereby directed that if the Petitioner has not raised objection regarding liability in proper form in his objection as contemplated u/s 9 of the P.D.R. Act he may file so within a period of three weeks alongwith a copy of this order before the Certificate Officer in certificate case No. 200/2002. On receipt of such objection denying the liabilities on factual aspects the Certificate Officer shall as both the parties to adduce evidence and furnish documents and then make the proper investigation and come to a just decision as to the proper liability of the Petitioner within the purview of Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act. Such objection shall be disposed of within a period of three month from the date of the presentation of the objection from the side or the Petitioner, is made clear that the Certificate Office i.e. the Respondent No. 7 shall maintain the time frame as mentioned above religious and strictly without giving any lenience laxity to either of the parties. If the Petitioner or the Respondent/Corporation fails of any occasion to discharge their duties as (sic) the orders of the Certificate Officer then the Certificate Officer shall be at liberty to proceed exparte. After deciding the matter u/s 9 of the Act as mentioned above as contemplated under Sections 10 and of the Act the Certificate Officer shall Petitioner proceed further according to law.

Till such decision is arrived at the Certificate Officer shall not proceed with as further coercive steps against the petition.

With this, observation and directed the writ petition is disposed of.