AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the Writ petition for the following reliefs:
“I. For issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ/Writs, order/orders or direction for quashing the Notice dated 10.12.2013, (Annex-3) issued by the District Certificate Officer, Bettiah (West Champaran) for recovery of Rs. 24,61,057.00/- under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa P.D.R. Act, 1914.
II. For issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ/Writs, order/orders or directions for quashing the Notice of Form No.17, dated 05.01.2016 (Annex-8) and to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.
III. For any other relief or reliefs under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner.”.
It is relevant to mention here that when the matter was taken up on 17.12.2024, the Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that S.L.P. No.16909 of 2016 was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the present matter was on the same footing and requested to take up the present matter after disposal of the said S.L.P. No.16909 of 2016.
The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents now submits that S.L.P. No.16909 of 2016 has since been disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the issues raised in the present Writ petition are now governed by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawapuri Rice Mills Vs. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors. and analogous cases, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3777. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the respondents that the present Writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Certificate Case is pending before the Certificate Officer.
Heard the Learned counsel for the parties.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawapuri Rice Mills (supra) has observed as follows:
“37.The next limb of the argument is that the continuation and the concluding of proceedings by the certificate officers are vitiated by procedural irregularities. The arguments on this behalf are already referred to in the preceding paragraphs. To capture the arguments in a nutshell, it is noted that the initiation is not in accordance with the procedure stipulated under the Act, the procedure prescribed by the Act is not followed, and the principles of natural justice are violated.
38.The Act is a comprehensive and codified enactment that provides adequate safeguards for parties facing recovery actions. Parts II and IV of the Act outline the procedures for filing, serving, and contesting recovery certificates, as well as provisions for appeal, revision, and review. Procedural Safeguards : Part II of the Act outlines the procedure for filing, serving, and adjudicating certificates. Sections 43 and 44 provide remedies to challenge certificates in civil courts on specific grounds. The section provides for a time limit of 6 months for availing the remedy to move to the Civil Court. Sections 60, 62, and 63 deal with appeal, revision, and review of the orders made under the Act.
39.The Division Bench rightly emphasised the availability of these statutory remedies to the aggrieved persons. The Rice Millers, by invoking Writ jurisdiction, have failed to exhaust statutory remedies at the first instance.
40.Mr. Manish Kumar has placed before us the photocopies of the proceedings of the certificate officer, and argued that these proceedings have been initiated in due compliance with the provisions of the Act and have been concluded by duly considering the objections raised by the Rice Millers. In other words, the argument proceeds that there is no procedural infirmity in the respective certificates issued in favour of the Civil Supplies Corporation. Hence, the civil appeals are also liable to be dismissed by rejecting the contentions on procedural deviation.
41.We have perused the record and are of the view that the Rice Millers invoked the Writ remedy by raising a jurisdictional fact against realising the sums as a public demand under the Act. As a Writ court or in an appeal under Article 136, we are not examining the contentions on alleged procedural deviations. We, however, leave it open to the respective Rice Millers to avail a statutory remedy as may be available under the Act. For availing a statutory remedy, we grant thirty days from today to the Rice Millers.
42.In the event of a Rice Miller availing a statutory remedy as permitted by this Judgment, the said authority shall entertain the case without reference to the delay and the period of limitation in availing a remedy before the said authority. With the above observation, the civil appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ”
The ratio of the aforesaid judgment is that, where an efficacious statutory remedy is available under the PDR Act, the aggrieved party ought ordinarily avail such remedy instead of invoking the extraordinary, Writ jurisdiction of this Court, particularly where the challenge involves disputed questions and alleged procedural irregularities in the certificate proceeding.
In the present case also, the petitioner has raised several grounds touching upon the validity of the certificate proceeding, including alleged defects in Form No. 1, non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, alleged absence of proper enquiry and the question as to whether the amount in question is recoverable as a public demand.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawapuri Rice Mills (supra), this Court is not inclined to examine the aforesaid disputed questions or the alleged procedural irregularities in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction at this stage.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims and contentions of the parties, the present Writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawapuri Rice Mills (supra).
The petitioner shall be at liberty to file his objections under Section 9 of the PDR Act, and such other documents as may be necessary, before the concerned Certificate Officer within one month from the date of receipt/communication of the present order.
In the event the petitioner files such objection within the aforesaid period, the concerned Certificate Officer shall entertain and consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the certificate proceeding in question, subject to the petitioner availing the statutory remedy within the aforesaid period.
In result, the Writ petition is disposed of with the above said observations.
Interlocutory Application, if any, shall stands disposed of.