In the absence of a written agreement, as required under item No. 9 of Schedule I of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, the Certificate Officer lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the certificate case for recovery of dues as public demand.

U.N.Sinha, J.

1. This application has been filed by the petitioner, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that a writ of prohibition be issued for striking down and cancelling Certificate Case No. 69 of 1963-64, pending before the Certificate Officer, Siwan, in the district of Saran. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing four orders dated the 9th September, 1963, 31st July, 1967, 25th January, 1968 and 1st May, 1968, passed by the Certificate Officer and authorities above him, terminating in the last order passed by the Board of Revenue. Copies of the aforesaid orders have been incorporated in Annexure 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the writ application respectively. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and others and a reply to the counter-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.

2. The relevant facts, mentioned in the application under consideration are as follows: It is stated that the petitioner was a dealer in foodgrains under the name and style of Messrs. Sheotahal Sah Harihar Prasad, doing business at Maharajganj in the district of Saran. At the request of the Subdivisional Officer of Siwan, he had agreed to work as a stockist of foodgrains on payment of commission at village Chainpur. [It appears that the petitioner had been appointed as a stockist on the 12th May, 1951]. It is stated that on account of some differences with the petitioner and on some adverse reports, the Relief Officer of the Stale of Bihar (opposite party No. 7) got the arrangment entered into with the petitioner cancelled without any notice. A protest petition had been filed by the petitioner, but nothing has been heard about it. According to the petitioner, after arrangement had been terminated, the local officers had seized the accounts maintained by him and his registers and had removed the entire available stock from the petitioners godown and all protests made by the petitioner were infructuous. It is stated that due to grudge against the petitioner, the Certificate Officer of Siwan (opposite party No. 3) has issued a certificate, purporting it to be one under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (Bihar and Orissa Act No, 4 of 1914), on the basis of a written requisition submitted by the Subdivisional Officer, (opposite party No. 2), demanding Rs. 59,635.25 paise. A copy of the certificate received by the petitioner has been appended as Annexure 1 of the writ application. It is alleged that the arrangement entered into by the petitioner had been made at the verbal request of the Sub-divisional Officer and there was no contract made in accordance with the requirements of Article 299 of the Constitution of India, and as a matter of fact, no agreement in writing between the parties had been brought into existence. It is stated in the application that on receipt of the notice of demand in respect of the certificate, the petitioner had filed an objection, asserting, inter alia, that there could be no foundation for the proceeding in the absence of a written agreement. A copy of the objection has been appended as Annexure 3 of the application. It is alleged that in spite of all objections made by the petitioner, the Certificate Officer and the higher authorities have passed adverse orders against the petitioner on the mere surmise that there must have been a written agreement between the parties which could form the basis of the demand made in the Certificate case. As indicated later, the Certificate Officer by his order dated the 9th September, 1963 (Annexure 4) reduced the demand to Rs. 27,094.44 paise and this liability has been upheld upto the Board of Revenue.

3. The main point in the case being whether the dues, if any, from the petitioner can be realised as public demand, the relevant facts, mentioned in the counter-affidavit, may now be mentioned. It is stated that there is no record to show that at the mere request of the Subdivisional