AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 07-08-2026
The Writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire certificate proceedings bearing Certificate Case No. 15/ 2014-15 passed by Respondent No. 3, as contained in Annexure 2 series, and further for a direction to the Respondent No. 3, to release the petitioner from custody in the light of objections of the petitioner.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.06.2019, directed that the petitioner be released forthwith from civil prison, subject to the outcome of the representation.
For better appreciation, it is just necessary to re-write the order dated 26.06.2019 passed in CWJC No. 7376 of 2019, which reads as follows:-
Petitioner, in the present case, has moved this Court for quashing of the entire certificate proceeding bearing Certificate Case No.15/2014-15 and the order passed by the respondent no.3, as contained in Annexure-2 series. Since the petitioner has been sent to the civil prison, a prayer has been made for his release from the custody.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 25.01.2019 the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Darbhanga has, in exercise of his power to execute the certificate in question, sent the petitioner to the civil prison. Learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of the entire order-sheets, which have been brought on record vide Annexure-2 series, it would appear that on receipt of therequisition from the Syndicate Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,29,423/- together with court fee etc. certificate officer issued a show cause notice to the certificate debtor. The petitioner appeared on notice and filed a reply. On various dates the petitioner appeared but thereafter on few dates both the parties left their pairvi. On 19.07.2017 the certificate officer rejected the objection preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not appeared. Thereafter, a bailable warrant of arrest was issued, the petitioner was produced pursuant to the said warrant and then sent behind the bar.
It is his contention that the certificate officer has not at all followed the mandate of Section 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (in short ‘Act of 1914’). It is submitted that even if the certificate debtor was absent after filing the objection, it was incumbent upon the certificate officer in whose office the original certificate was filed to hear the petition, take cognizance (if necessary) and determine whether the certificate debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount for which the certificate was signed. It is submitted that in the present case the Bank was also not present on 19.07.2017. No hearing took place, no evidence was taken by the certificate officer to determine the liability of the certificate debtor, still the certificate officer proceeded to execute the certificate. In this connection, he has brought to the notice of this Court Section 14 of the Act of 1914 which starts with negative covenant saying that “ No step in execution of a certificate shall be taken until the period of thirty days has elapsed since the date of the service of the notice required by sections 7 and 11, or when a petition has been duly filed under section 9, until such petition has been heard and determined”. It is submitted that the word ‘no’ followed by word ‘shall’ make it clear that Section 14 is a mandatory provision and only after taking note of the circumstances stated therein and compliance thereof the certificate officer can proceed to execute the certificate by adopting one of the modes under Section 15 of the Act of 1914.
In the present case, it is submitted that the life and liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed by putting him behind the bar without following the established procedure under the Act of 1914.
Learned counsel for the Bank as well as the State of Bihar are present and they pray for some time to file a counter affidavit. On going through the entire order-sheets as contained in Annexure-2 series, this Court is of the prima-facie view that mandate of Section 10 and 14 of the Act of 1914 has not been followed by the certificate officer. This Court would, therefore, call upon the then Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Darbhanga who has passed the order dated 19.07.2017 and 25.01.2019 to file his counter affidavit also dealing with the aforesaid issues.
List this case on 15th July, 2019 under the same heading.
Let the petitioner be released forthwith from the civil prison subject to final outcome of the writ application.
Let this order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner.
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the respondents.
It is the specific contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that he is challenging the entire proceedings, as there is a mandate under Sections 10 and 14 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 which has not been followed by the Certificate Officer.
On the other hand, the Learned counsel for the respondents contended that a direction may be issued to the Certificate Officer to pass an appropriate order under Section 10 of the Act after considering the objections filed by the petitioner.
The record reveals that the petitioner has filed objection under Section 9 of the PDR Act before the Certificate Officer. In spite of the same, the Certificate Officer without following the mandatory provisions, proceeded with the arrest of the petitioner.
Therefore, without going into the merits of this Case, this Court directs the Certificate Officer to hear the petitioner on merits, consider the objections filed by him, and pass an appropriate order under Section 10 of the Act. It is needless to say that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till passing of the order under Section 10 of the Act.
With the aforesaid observations, the Writ petition stands disposed of.