Patna High Court
Krishna Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Bihar on 13 May, 2025
Author: A. Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A. Abhishek Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8451 of 2024
======================================================
Krishna Kumar Thakur Son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad Thakur Resident of
Holding No. 106/518, Khabra Road, Near Pandey Sadan, P.S.- Kaji
Mohammadour, PO - Ramna, Muzaffarpur - 842001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Joint Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Regional Chief Engineer, PHED Muzaffarpur Zone, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Superintending Engineer, P.H.E. Muzaffarpur Circle, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Executive Engineer, P.H. Division, Muzaffarpur.
7. The Certificate Officer, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (20)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-05-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following
relief(s):-
"i) To issue an appropriate writ/
order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and
setting aside the entire certificate proceedings initiated
by the Certificate Officer, Muzaffarpur being Certificate
Case No. 1971 of 2022 with respect to the recovvery of
Rs. 40,60,212/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two
Hundred Twelve Only) allegedly paid in excess by the
Respondents to the Petitioner in respect of P.H. Division
Muzaffarpur Agreement Nos. F2-16/2008-09 and F2-
18/2008-09
;
Patna High Court CWJC No.8451 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025
ii) To issue an appropriate
writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
and setting aside the Notice dated 27.01.2023 (Anx P/18)
issued by the Certificate Officer, Muzaffarpur for
initiating the certificate proceedings against the
Petitioner for recovery of Rs. 40,60,212/- (Rupees Forty
Lakhs Sixty Thousand Two Hundred Twelve Only);
iii) To issue an appropriate
writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
and setting aside the entire investigation proceeding
sought to be initiated against the Petitioner by the
Respondents with respect to Agreement Nos. F2-16/2008-
09 and F2-18/2008-09 as being violative of principals of
natural justice;
iv) to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction
in the nature of mandamus declaring that the Agreement
Nos. F2-16/2008-09 and F2-18/2008-09 have determined
and that no recover can be effected in view of the fact
that the no-objection certificate has been issued by the
Respondents;
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
awarded an agreement for diging 264 wells in the year 2008, the
petitioner had completed the work in the year 2010 and submitted
the final bills. That the security deposit of the petitioner was
returned in the year 2012 after expiry of the defect liability period.
That the final bills of the petitioners were also paid on 11.03.2014.
That in the month of November, 2011, the petitioner lodged an FIR
against one Superintendent Engineer which relates to the extortion
Patna High Court CWJC No.8451 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025
of the amount from the petitioner towards the 2013 contract. The
said Superintendent Engineer with a view to take revenge against
the petitioner has issued show cause notice on 16.08.2019
pertaining to the agreement of 2008. Though the petitioner has
filed his objections, the authority without conducting any proper
inquiry has directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.
45,59,590/- stating that the same is recoverable from the petitioner.
Thereafter, the Assistant Engineer vide report dated 25.02.2020 has
given a report stating that the errors found were general in nature
and there is no manipulation in the work done by the petitioner.
However, the superintendent Engineer without any legal basis has
deferred from finding of the Assistant Engineer. That on
04.01.2022 and 05.07.2022, the petitioner received notices for
recovery of an amount of Rs. 40,60,212/-. That the petitioner
thereafter received the demand notice on 30.07.2022 and
27.01.2022 a notice has been served in Certificate Case No. 197 of
2022-23.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the
very initiation of the certificate proceedings for the works which
were done in the year 2008, that too after final bills were paid, the
security deposit returned and after the expiry of the defect liability
period in the year 2014 is illegal, bad, time barred, arbitrary
Patna High Court CWJC No.8451 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025
exercise of powers and also against the principles of natural justice
and equity. Learned counsel has stated that as per Section 65-B of
the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 the
period of limitation is prescribed and the amounts cannot be
recovered from the petitioner. Further, it is stated that the inquiry
conducted by the Superintendent Engineer fixing a liability of Rs.
40,60,212/- is behind the back of the petitioner as no show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner before the said inquiry was
conducted. Learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the
Patna High Court reported in (2007) 4 PLJR 590 and (2019) 3
PLJR 446. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon'ble
Court to allow the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents State has stated that the authority duly finding that the
amounts paid to the petitioner were recoverable has passed the
impugned order and though a demand notice was issued to the
petitioner, the petitioner has failed to pay, therefore the Certificate
proceedings were initiated. Learned counsel has stated that the
petitioner has a remedy of filing his objections in the certificate
proceedings and based on the objections filed by the petitioner, the
final orders will be passed. That the petitioner without filing his
Patna High Court CWJC No.8451 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025
objections has straightaway approached this Hon'ble Court by way
of the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In order to resolve the issue involved in the present
writ petition, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions of
the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, more
particularly, Section 65 B which reads as under :
65. Application of the [Limitation Act, 1963]. -
(1) Section 6 to 9 of '[the Limitation Act, 1963
(Act no. 36 of 1963) shall not apply to suits, appeals or
applications under this Act.
(2) Except as declared in sub-section (1), or as
otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the
[limitation Act, 1963], shall apply to all proceedings
under this Act as if a certificate filed hereunder were
decree of a Civil Court.
7. A learned Single Judge of this High Court in Pawan
Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2019) 3 PLJR
446 has held as under:-
"Brij Mohan Prasad (supra), a learned
coordinate Bench of this Court recorded in paragraph 9
of its judgment as follows:
"Certificate proceedings are proceedings for
recovery of ascertained dues. It is not a proceeding
where the certificate officer is to act like a Civil Court
and determine the liability. The liability is, prima facie,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8451 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025
pre determined and the proceedings are only for recovery
of those pre determined liability.
Here in the present case, there have been no
proceeding determining the liability of the petitioner.
There being no ascertained legal liability as against the
petitioner there could not be a proceeding for its
recovery."
Budha Singh (supra) has having considered the relevant
provisions, in paragraph 8 of its judgment recorded as under:--
"According to Item No. 9, any money payable
to a servant of the Government or to any local authority
in respect of which person liable to pay the same has
agreed by a written instrument that it shall be
recoverable as a public demand, will come within the
definition of public demand as occurring in Sec.3(6) of
the said Act. The money in question is not payable to a
servant of the Government or any local authority but to
the Governor of Bihar. This apart the Public Demands
Recovery Act lays down summary procedure for
realisation of money and it requires strict compliance
with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. A certificate
is in the nature of decree. This is why Sec.4 of the Act
necessitates the satisfaction of the Certificate Officer that
money sought to be realised is due. It is in this context
that the terms any money in respect of which the person
liable to pay the same has agreed have to be considered.
The loss mentioned in Para 5 of the agreement in
questions in the nature of damages and not an
ascertained sum of money nor can it be said that amount
is ascertainable on the face of the terms of the
agreement. This being the position, the respondents
Patna High Court CWJC No.8451 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025
cannot take advantage of the provisions of Item No. 9 of
Sch.1 of of the Act. I may, however, observe that the
respondents shall be within their rights to proceed
against the petitioner for recovery of the loss after it is
duly ascertained in accordance with law."
8. Further, this Court in the case of M/s Lal Chand Panna
Lal & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar reported in (2007) 4 PLJR 590
has held as under:
"Section 65 Sub-Section (2) of the P.D.R. Act,
1914 provides : that the provisions of Limitation Act shall
apply to all proceedings under this Act as if a certificate
filed hereunder were decree of a Civil Court. The
limitation as provided is of three years. The requisition
for initiating Certificate proceeding was filed on
9.9.2005 much beyond the period of limitation. Inspite of
that the Certificate Officer has signed a Certificate under
Section 6 of P.D.R. Act that recovery is not barred by any
law. This objection raised by the petitioner has not been
answered or denied specifically in the counter affidavit.
The Certificate proceeding is apparently barred by
limitation. If the statute has casted a duty upon the
statutory authority to act in a particular manner, he must
act in that manner only, and his act must be justifiable
under the provisions of the Act. The applicability of the
Limitation Act under the P.D.R. Act makes it obligatory
for the Certificate Officer to verify before issuance of
Certificate that the certificate proceeding is not barred by
limitation."
9. Having regard to the above, the initiation of the
certificate proceedings against the petitioner after a lapse of more
Patna High Court CWJC No.8451 of 2024 dt.13-05-2025
than 14 years is barred by limitation and therefore, liable to be set
aside and the same is accordingly set aside.
10. The present C.W.J.C. stand allowed, however,
without costs.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Gauravkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 15.05.2025
Transmission Date N/A
