Patna High Court
Krishna Nandan Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar Through The ... on 22 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2883 of 2021
======================================================
Krishna Nandan Prasad Singh, Son of - Late Sheo Deni Singh, Resident of -
53, Satyam Apartment, Nageshwar Colony, Kavi Raman Path Boring Road,
P.S. - Buddha colony, District- Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajpur.
2. The Districtg Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajipur.
3. The District Development Commissioner, Vaishali, Hajipur.
4. The Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Work
Division- 01, Hajipur, Vaishali.
5. The Executive Engineer, N.R.E.P., Vaishali, Hajipur.
6. The Certificate Officer, Vaishali, Hajipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Lalit Kishore (A.G.)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR)
Date : 22-11-2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
(I) "That the present writ application is being
filed for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction in the
nature of certiorary for quashing/setting aside the
Certificate Case No. 402/2014-15, which has been initiated
against the petitioner on the basis of following grounds.
(a) The demand made under
certificate proceeding is not qualified under "Public
Demand" under Section 3(6) read with schedule-1 of
Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 for
Patna High Court CWJC No.2883 of 2021 dt.22-11-2021
the sake of brevity hereinafter mentioned PDR Act, 1914,
as the petitioner himself is a public servant and the
money for which demand has been raised has been spent
in official capacity with due approval from the
department.
(b) The notice served under
certificate case no. 402/2014-15 is defective and the copy
of the requisition for the issuing the certificate has not
been served to the petitioner which is violation of
principle of natural justice.
(c) The proceeding started against
the petitioner is against the principle of enquity as the
petitioner along with other officers was responsible for
the implementation of scheme, while the proceeding has
been started against the petitioner only.
(II) Alternatively for setting aside
the order dated 15.12.2017 and 12.01.2018 passed in
certificate case no. 402/2014-15, whereby and where
under the objection filed by the petitioner has been
declared time barred, which is contrary to the record
itself and warrant of attachment has been issued against
the petitioner in complete violation of Section 12 and
Section 13 of PDR Act, 1914.
(III) For directing the respondents to
consider their review application filed under Section 63
of PDR Act, 1914, which is pending since 21.03.2018.
(IV) For supplying the copy of
requisition to the petition which has been filed before the
Certificate Officer for issuance of the Certificate.
(V) For any other relief for which
the petitioner is entitled for in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
Learned counsel for the petitioner in the presence of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2883 of 2021 dt.22-11-2021
learned counsel for the respondents submit that this case is
squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated
27.09.2021 passed in CWJC No. 907 of 2021 (Ashwini Kumar
Gupta Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors), and said contention is
not disputed by learned counsel for the State and learned
counsel for the BSFC, as such present writ petition is disposed
of in the same terms. The operative portion of the said judgment
reads as follows:-
"Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and having heard the
learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
the impugned order dated 29.02.2020 is an
unreasoned order which does not show any
application of mind and moreover, no succinct, clear
or cogent reasons have been furnished for arriving at
a decision to reject the objection filed by the
petitioner under Section 9 of the Act,1914, hence the
same is not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus is
quashed, however, the matter is remanded back to the
Certificate Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua to pass
appropriate orders, in accordance with law after
considering the objection filed by the petitioner under
Section 9 of the Act, 1914. Reference in this
connection be had to a judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries (P)
Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2010) 13
SCC 427."
Patna High Court CWJC No.2883 of 2021 dt.22-11-2021
The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid
extent.
(Sanjay Karol, CJ)
( S. Kumar, J)
veena/rajiv-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
