Md. Ehsanul Haque vs The State of Jharkhand and Another

Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.3.2009 and the subsequent orders including the warrant of arrest issued in Certificate Case No. 225 of 2001 by the Certificate Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that court fee was not deposited by the certificate holder in the said certificate case and it was violation of Section 5(2) of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 and, therefore, the orders passed in the said certificate case are null and void. However, it is submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the certificate dues in installments.

On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the Divisional Manager, Minor forest Produce Division, Giridih-respondent No. 2, referring to the counter affidavit, submitted that it is true that by mistake the court fee was not filed earlier but as soon as the said mistake came to the notice, the court fee was filed on 27.8.2009, after passing of the order impugned, which is also recoverable as certificate dues. It is further submitted that at best it is an irregularity and, on that basis, the order passed in the certificate case may not be declared as null and void. He further submitted that the petitioner got an alternative remedy of appeal.

It is true that certificate holder should have taken more care and caution and should have filed court fee at the time of institution of the certificate case, but the court fee was filed when it was detected that it has not been filed, though after passing of the impugned order. It further appears that the petitioner did not point out about the non-deposit of court fee before the certificate officer though he appeared before him and argued the case.

In the circumstances, the order passed in the certificate case cannot be declared as null and void as non deposit of court fee was an irregularity which was cured afterwards. However, as the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in this writ petition. The petitioner, if so advised, may file appeal before the appellate authority. If such appeal is filed within thirty days from today along with the statutory deposit and a petition for condoning the delay, the appellate authority may condone the delay in view of pendency of this case, and will decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously, in which the petitioner should cooperate. If any petition for interim relief is filed, the appellate authority will pass orders thereon as early as possible.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.