Patna High Court
Dinesh Kumar Singh Proprietor Of ... vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 1 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7752 of 2016
======================================================
Dinesh Kumar Singh (Proprietor of Kushwaha Mini Rice Mill) son of Girija
Nandan Singh, resident of Village- Khairahar, P.S. Dehri, District- Rohtas
(Sasaram).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, District Rohtas (Sasaram)
2. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited through its
M.D., Bihar at Patna.
3. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, Rohtas (Sasaram) , District - Rohtas at Sasaram
4. The District Certificate Officer, Rohtas Sasaram, District- Rohtas (Sasaram).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Sumeet Kumar Singh
Shivam Singh
Kumar Vikram
Alka Singh, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Ramadhar Singh, GP 25
For the BSFC : M/s Shailendra Kumar Singh
Sanjay Prasad
Utkarsh Bhushan,
Utkarsh Utpal, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-10-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs:
"(i) That the present writ application is
being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ order/
direction(s)in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the
Certificate Case no-70 of 2014-2015 which has been
initiated against the petitioner on the basis Certificate
which forms part of section -7 notice is contrary to the
statuary rules of Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914
Patna High Court CWJC No.7752 of 2016 dt.01-10-2024
(herein after referred as "P.D.R.Act, 1914" for the sake of
brevity) as it is signed by the District Manager, Rohtas at
Sasaram as well which is evident from the Annexure-5, to
this writ application thus amount to defective notice and
defective initiation of the Certificate Case and moresoever
there is no Certificate notice issued to the petitioner, no
date has been given to which the petitioner should appear
before the Certificate Officer;
II. For issuance of an appropriate writ
order/ direction(s)in the nature of Certiorari for setting
aside the Certificate Case bearing Certificate Case no- 70
of 2014-2015 as the same is issued by the respondent no-4
under the Public demand recovery act by which it is asked
to pay amount on the ground that the process is not
followed properly by the Bihar State Food and Civil
Supplies Corporation, Rohtas at Sasaram(herein after
referred as "B.S.F.C" for the sake of brevity) as no notice
under section-7 served to the petitioner and also the
distress warrant has been issued without following the due
process of law and without following the mandatory
provisions of law which is in violation of the fundamental
rights of the petitioner as evident from the Annexure-6 to
the writ application;
III. And for issuance of any other relief or
relief(s) for which the petitioner is entitled for."
3. At the outset, Learned counsel for petitioner
contended that since this matter is squarely covered under the
order dated 11.07.2024 passed in CWJC No. 9221 of 2016
(Raju Gupta Versus The State of Bihar & Ors.), this writ
petition may also be disposed of on the same term and
Patna High Court CWJC No.7752 of 2016 dt.01-10-2024
conditions. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws
attention of this Court on a judgment passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in Nageshwar Prasad Singh Vs. Rai
Bahadur Kashinath Singh (1958 BLJR 820). As regards the
effect of a defective Certificate on the validity of the Certificate
proceeding, the Division Bench of this Court in Nageshwar
Prasad Singh (supra) has observed as follows:
"The Certificate-Officer must
meticulously apply his mind to filing the Certificate and
filling in the columns and blanks correctly and in
appending his Certificate in the form prescribed, and
that the filling in of the forms is a matter of substance
and is imperative, to give the Certificate the force of a
decree of court of law, and if it is found that the
Certificate-Officer had not applied his mind at all and
that some of the blank spaces were not filled up, or were
incorrectly filled up, the document so prepared and filed
is not a Certificate under the Public Demands Recovery
Act. The Certificate proceedings are wholly invalid and
the officer concerned acts without jurisdiction"
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the respondents.
5. In view of the fact that this matter is squarely
covered by the aforesaid judgments, in the totality of the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Certificate issued in
Form No. 1 signed by the District Manager of the BSFC and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7752 of 2016 dt.01-10-2024
Certificate Officer in the manner aforesaid is held to be invalid
and is hereby quashed along with the notice under Section 7 of
the Act issued in pursuance thereof. The matter is remitted to the
Certificate Officer, Rohtas (Sasaram) for issuance of a fresh
Certificate as well as the notice under Section 7 of the Act and
thereafter to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
6. It is made clear that in the meantime, the
Certificate Officer, Rohtas (Sasaram), shall not resort to any
coercive action for recovery of the dues against the petitioner in
Certificate Case No. 70 of 2014-15.
7. With the aforesaid observations, this writ
petition stands disposed of in light of the judgment passed in
Raju Gupta and Nageshwar Prasad Singh(supra).
8. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.10.2024
Transmission Date NA
