Patna High Court
Arun Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 30 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2144 of 2018
======================================================
Arun Kumar Tiwari Son of Late Raj Kishore Tiwary, Resident of Shivpuri
Colony, Bara Gamhariya, P.O.- Gamhariya, P.S.- Adityapur, District-
Saraikela Jharkhand, presently residing at Laxmi Niwas, State Bank Colony,
P.O. Chapra, P.S.- Chapra Town, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, District- Saran at Chapra.
3. The District Planning Officer, Saran at Chapra, District- Saran at Chapra.
4. The District Certificate Officer, Saran at Chapra, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anita Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Harish Kumar -GP8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-06-2025
1. The Writ petition is filed to quash the
order dated 04.01.2018 passed by respondent No. 4
in Certificate Case No. 01 of 2016-17 (District
Planning Officer, Saran at Chapra Vs. Arun Kumar
Tiwary), whereby respondent No. 4 has been pleased
to hold that the certificate amount is recoverable
from the certificate debtor(s), and was further
pleased to direct initiation of action for recovery of
the amount.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2144 of 2018 dt.30-06-2025
2/8
2. The second relief sought is that, after
service of notice of certificate proceedings, if an
objection has been filed by the certificate debtor, it is
the statutory duty of the respondent No. 4 to deal
with the objection under Section 9 of the Public
Demand Recovery Act so raised by the certificate
debtor. Since the impugned order dated 04.01.2018
does not consider any of the grounds urged by the
certificate debtor in his objection, the impugned
order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
3. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondent.
4. The brief facts, as culled out from the
Writ petition, are that for the purpose of supplying 70
school buses, an agreement was entered into
between Saraswati Component Pvt. Ltd., Dahiawan,
Chapra and the District Planning Officer, Saran at
Chapra on 11.03.2013. As per the agreement, the
petitioner's company was required to supply the
buses within 40-60 days. In order to fulfill the
conditions of the agreement, the petitioner company
Patna High Court CWJC No.2144 of 2018 dt.30-06-2025
3/8
vide its letter dated 04.05.2013, informed
respondent No. 3 that 34 numbers of 32 seater buses
and 40 numbers of 40 seater school buses were
ready for delivery and which were kept in the yard. A
request was made to respondent No. 3 to arrange for
the delivery of those buses by deputing authorized
personnel from the depot. Further, the respondent
No. 3 was informed on 20.03.2013 and 03.04.2013
regarding the supply of buses. However, they did not
receive any reply. The communications which took
place between the petitioner and the respondent No.
3 were brought on record vide Annexure- P/4 series.
Despite of repeated reminders to supply the buses,
the respondent No. 3 did not respond, thereafter, the
petitioner's company had no option but to raise a
demand for more than one crore rupees, which
incurred towards the maintenance of 48 buses. The
respondent No. 3 ultimately received those buses at
a belated stage for which, the petitioner company
sustained huge financial losses, due to the latches of
the informant. The company was not willing to
supply the buses rather, it expressed the willingness
Patna High Court CWJC No.2144 of 2018 dt.30-06-2025
4/8
to refund the due amount, after deducting the cost
incurred towards maintenance of buses.
5. It is pertinent to note that the
agreement was entered into on 09.07.2016. A
requisition was filed by respondent No. 3 before
respondent No. 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs.
2,21,64,426/- along with interest of Rs. 47,03,436/-,
totaling Rs. 2,68,67,862/- (Two Crores Sixty-Eight
Lakh Sixty-Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Two)
from the petitioner. Subsequently, Certificate Case
No. 01 of 2016-17 was instituted before respondent
No. 4, and a notice under Section 7 of the Act was
issued to the petitioner. Upon receipt of the said
notice, the petitioner filed objections under Section 9
of the Act on 26.12.2016. Despite this, the
authorities have not passed any order on the said
objection. Therefore, the present Writ petition has
been filed seeking a direction to quash the certificate
proceedings and to direct the authorities to pass an
appropriate order under Section 10 of the Act.
6. A detailed counter affidavit has been
filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 4. The contents of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2144 of 2018 dt.30-06-2025
5/8
the counter affidavit disclose that the petitioner
delivered only 48 buses instead of 70 buses and
failed to supply the remaining 22 buses as per
agreement. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner
did not refund the balance amount paid to the
company, towards the cost of 70 buses. A requisition
was submitted vide Letter No. 351 dated 09.07.2016
by the District Planning Officer, Saran at Chapra
before the District Certificate Officer, Saran, for
recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,21,64,426/- along with
interest of Rs. 47,03,436/-, totaling Rs. 2,68,67,862/-.
Later, an FIR was also lodged against the petitioner
on 12.07.2016 in connection with Chapra Town P.S.
Case No. 327 of 2016.
7. The counter affidavit further disclose
that Certificate Case No. 01/2016-17 was instituted
by the District Certificate Officer against the
petitioner/ Arun Kumar Tiwary, proprietor of Sarswati
Component Pvt. Ltd. After service of notice, the
petitioner appeared before the District Certificate
Officer, Saran and filed his objection on 26.12.2016.
On 15.02.2017, a rejoinder petition was also filed on
Patna High Court CWJC No.2144 of 2018 dt.30-06-2025
6/8
behalf of Certificate holder, in response to the
objection petition dated 26.12.2016. Subsequently,
on 07.10.2017, an additional rejoinder petition was
filed by the respondent No. 3 against the said
objection petition. On 23.03.2017, another objection
petition was filed by the petitioner, to which the
certificate holder (respondent No. 3) filed a rejoinder.
After perusing the objections and rejoinders filed by
the certificate debtor and the certificate holder, the
District Certificate Officer, Saran, was pleased to hold
that the amount involved in the certificate case is
recoverable from the certificate debtor, and
accordingly, an order was passed on 04.01.2018.
8. Upon perusal of the entire records, it is
evident that a detailed order has not been passed on
the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 9
of the Act. However, the order dated 14.01.2018
clearly disclose that the objections have been taken
into consideration, and decision was passed vide an
order under Section 10 of the Act. Admittedly, the
Writ petitioner challenged the order dated
04.01.2018
, on the ground that the respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.2144 of 2018 dt.30-06-2025
have not passed any order under Section 10 of the
Act. The remedy available to the petitioner is to
challenge the said order, by way of appeal under
Section 60 of the Public Demands and Recovery Act.
An effective alternative remedy is available to the
petitioner. Instead of availing the the same, the
petitioner has approached this Court. Therefore, this
Court is of the considerable view that the Writ
petition itself is not maintainable.
9. At this juncture, the Learned counsel
for the petitioner seeks liberty to challenge the order
by way of an appeal before the appropriate authority.
The Writ petition was filed in the year 2018.
Therefore, the appellate authority, shall liberally
construe the limitation aspect while considering the
appeal. An appeal shall be filed by the petitioner
within one month from the date of receipt of the
order along with all relevant documents. Further, the
appellate authority shall consider the case in
accordance with law and shall dispose of the appeal
within three months from filing of the appeal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2144 of 2018 dt.30-06-2025
10. With the aforesaid observations, the
Writ petitions stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
AMANDEEP/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 14.07.2025.
Transmission Date
