Patna High Court
Ram Niwas Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 13 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18813 of 2018
======================================================
Ram Niwas Singh S/o Late Sheo Pujan Singh R/o Village - Sonpa Gram
Panchayat - Jalalpur, P.S. - Rajpur, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
4. The Director, Account, Administration and Self Employment, District Rural
Development Officer, Chausa, District Buxar
5. The Block Development Officer, Chausa, District - Buxar.
6. The District Certificate Officer, Buxar, Distt - Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18873 of 2018
======================================================
Dhirendra Kumar Sanik S/o Late Shambhu Prasad, R/o Village-Nayi Bazar,
P.S.-Buxar Muffasil,District-Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
4. The Director Account, Administration and Self Employment, District Rural
development Officer, Chausa, District-Buxar.
5. The Block Development Officer, Chausa, District-Buxar.
6. The District Certificate Officer, Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18890 of 2018
======================================================
Nazma Khatoon W/o Asjraf Hussain R/o Village-Chausa, P.S.-Buxar
Muffasil, District-Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
2/13
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Bihar,Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
4. The Director Account, Administration and Self Employment, District Rural
Development Officer, Chausa, District Buxar
5. The Block Development Officer, Chausa, District-Buxar.
6. The District Certificate Officer, Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18909 of 2018
======================================================
Usha Devi W/o Amala Ram R/o Village - Gauri, P.S. Rajpur, District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
4. The Director, Account, Administration and Self Employment, District Rural
Development Officer, Chausa, District Buxar
5. The Block Development Officer, Chausa, District - Buxar.
6. The District Certificate Officer, Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18933 of 2018
======================================================
Shailendra Kumar Choubey S/o Late Ramyas Choubey, resident of Village-
Bhasur, P.S. Dinara, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural
Development Department, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
4. The Director, Account, Administration and Self Employment, District Rural
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
3/13
Development Officer, Chausa, District Buxar
5. The Block Development Officer, Chausa, District- Buxar.
6. The District Certificate Officer, Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18935 of 2018
======================================================
Siya Ram Chaudhary S/o Late Nageshwar Prasad Chaudhary, R/o Village-
Narbatpur, P.S. Buxar Muffasil, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
4. The Director, Account, Administration and Self Employment, District Rural
Development Officer, Chausa, District Buxar
5. The Block Development Officer, Chausa, District- Buxar.
6. The District Certificate Officer, Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19053 of 2018
======================================================
Sunita Devi W/o Bishnu Singh Yadav, R/o Village- Akhripur Gola, P.S.-
Buxar Muffasil, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
5. The Block Development Officer, Chausa, District- Buxar.
6. The District Certificate Officer, Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19092 of 2018
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
4/13
======================================================
Subhash Prasad Gupta S/o late Bishwa Nath Sah R/o Village- Etadhi, P.S.
Etadhi, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
4. The Director Account, Administration and Self Employment, District Rural
Development Officer, Chausa, District Buxar
5. The Block Development Officer, Chausa , District- Buxar.
6. The District Certificate Officer, Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18813 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar- AAG4
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18873 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Vinay Kriti Singh -GA 2
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18890 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh-AC to GA2
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18909 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar -AAG 4
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18933 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar -AAG4
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18935 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC11
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19053 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Chhote Lal Mishra
Binod Murari Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Upadhyay, AC to GP 7
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19092 of 2018)
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Chhote Lal Mishra
Binod Murari Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sudhanshu Bhushan, AC to GP 7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-10-2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
5/13
1. As identical issues are involved in all
the Writ applications, they were heard and
considered together and as such common order is
being passed.
2. It is relevant to mention here that in all
the aforesaid Writ petitions, the relief prayed for
are same and similar hence, for better appreciation
of the case, the reliefs prayed for by one of the
petitioners are quoted herein below:
3. The petitioner(s) of all the Writ
petitions have filed the present Writ petition(s) for
the following reliefs:
"For quashing the memo No.
13-0229 dated 28.8.2018 issued
under the signature of District
Certificate Officer, Buxar whereby
and where under the petitioner have
been directed to deposit the
certificate amount mentioned in the
said memo in two instalments by
26.9.2018
in the office of the Block
Development officer Chausa. It is
further directed that in the event of
non-payment of the aforesaid amount
the officer in charge of concerned
police station will insure the
enforcement of warrant already
issued till 28.9.2018."
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
4. At the very outset, Learned counsel for
the petitioners contended that since these matters
are squarely covered under the order passed by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.
966 of 2025 (Anant Prasad Sahu Vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors), these Writ petitions may
also be disposed of on the same terms and
conditions.
5. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondents.
6. In Anant Prasad Sahu (supra) this
Court has held as follows:
"9. This Hon'ble Court in the
case of The Certificate Officer of Siwan
Central Co-operative Bank Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors. has held as under:-
"6. It is noticed by us that the
action of the appellant for the recovery of
the alleged amount of defalcation under
the provisions of the Bihar Public
Demands Recovery Act cannot be justified
in absence of any due and payable
amount to the Bank in terms of the
provision of the agreement or under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
provisions of the aforesaid Acts. The
observations made by the learned Single
Judge in latter part in paragraph 4 of the
impugned judgment are quite weighty and
cannot be dislodged in course of the
submissions before us.
7. A certificate proceeding
contemplated under law proceeded on the
premise that there is money due and
payable either in terms of the agreement
or contract or under the provisions of law.
Mere an allegation of the Bank with regard
to the defalcation by the employee in
course of the period of his service would
not tantamount "Ipso Facto" that the
amount due was legally payable to the
Bank by the person against whom such
allegations are made. It is in this context,
there would not arise any question of
grant of a certificate and resultant
recovery thereof under the provisions of
the said Acts.
8. This Court in M/s
Murlidhar Sohanlal vs. State of Bihar
& Ors., 1998(3) Patna Law Journal
Reports 526, had an occasion to deal
with similar situation and upon evaluation
of the relevant provisions of law and
similar facts situation has held that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
Corporation, in the present case Bank, can
avail the remedy of certificate proceeding
treating it to be a public demand provided
the person liable to pay the same has
agreed by a written instrument that it
shall be recoverable asa public demand.
Apart from the fact that there is no such
agreement and there is mere allegation of
defalcation of the aforesaid amount by the
employee of the Bank, the proposition of
law enunciated in the said judgment in
the said case by this Court, after
examining and appreciating the provision
of Section 9 read with Item No. 15 of
Schedule I of Bihar and Orissa Public
Demands Recovery Act, 1914, would
directly cover the facts of the present
case and, therefore, the appeal on hand is
without any substance and merit and
deserves to be dismissed at the
threshold."
10. This Hon'ble 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:-
"8. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
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 than 14 years is barred by limitation
and therefore, liable to be set aside and
the same is accordingly set aside."
11. A Division Bench of this
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
Hon'ble Court in the case of Mahendra
Prasad Jaiswal Vs. The State of Bihar
& Ors has held as under:-
"4. The grievance of the
appellant in the writ petition challenging
the certification proceedings was that the
amount in question is disputed. Until and
unless the quantification of the amount is
not undertaken by resolving the dispute or
adjudicating the dispute in accordance to
law by an appropriate forum, may be a
civil suit or a common law remedy
available, the certification proceedings
was not maintainable and the learned Writ
Court in the present case having not
adverted to consider this question of law,
learned counsel argues that in relegating
the appellant to take recourse to the
statutory remedy available under the Act
was unsustainable. He invites our
attention to a judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Budha Singh Vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors.- A.I.R.
1981 Pat 149 to say that until and unless
the amount in dispute is not adjudicated,
the certification proceedings are not
maintainable.
5. Even though learned
counsel for the respondents refuted the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
aforesaid contention, we are of the
considered view that while relegating the
appellant to take recourse to the statutory
alternate remedy available, the learned
Writ Court has not considered the
question as to whether the amount in
question is a disputed amount or a non-
disputed amount, whether the
certification proceedings was
maintainable without adjudication of the
dispute and whether the Corporation was
liable to recover the amount without
resorting to any adjudicatory proceedings
treating the amount to be an admitted
amount beyond the realm of a disputed
amount. This aspect of the matter having
not been adverted to by the learned Writ
Court, it is a fit case where this appeal
should be allowed and the writ petition
remanded back for reconsideration in
accordance with law."
12. Having regard to the
above mentioned facts and circumstances
and the law laid down by this Hon'ble
Court in the above mentioned judgments,
the recovery of the amount sought to be
made from the petitioner is not only
barred by limitation but it is to be noted
that the said amount does not come
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
under any of the clauses mentioned in
Schedule-I of the Act. Further, it is to be
noted that the amounts that are sought to
be recovered cannot be termed as public
demand as there is no agreement
between the parties admitting that the
amounts are due and recoverable from
the petitioner. It is also pertinent that that
the amounts sought to be recovered from
the petitioner have not been adjudicated
and found to be recoverable by a
competent Civil Court.
13. In view of the above, the
initiation of the certificate proceedings
against the petitioner are liable to be
quashed and the same is accordingly
quashed.
14. With the above directions,
the present writ petition stands allowed to
the extent indicated."
7. Having regard to the submissions
made by the parties, all the aforesaid writ petitions
stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
judgment passed in Anant Prasad Sahu (supra)
and Memo No. 13-0229 dated 28.08.2018 issued
under the signature of District Certificate Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18813 of 2018 dt.13-10-2025
Buxar are hereby quashed and set aside.
8. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall
stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 15.10.2025
Transmission Date
