S.K.JHA, J.

1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the certificate debtor in Certificate Case No. 7 of 1971-72 pending in the court of the District Certificate Officer, Monghyr, respondent No. 4, praying to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid certificate case. The notices and orders in the aforesaid case issued to the petitioner have been marked Annexures - 1 to 4 to this application. The aforesaid certificate case is said to have been initiated against the petitioner by respondent No. 4 on a requisition purported to have been made by the Divisional Forest Officer, Morghyr, respondent No. 2.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application may be shortly stated. There was an agreement for the purchase of Kendu leaf from lot No. 179 for a period of three years at an annual price of Rs. 13,600. The petitioner has asserted that the aforesaid agreement was subject to a provision that the Forest Department of the State of Bihar, respondent No. 1, would not allow anyone else to cut Kendu trees from the aforesaid lot. During the period of settlement, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 3,400 by way of security and also paid one yearandapos;s price for the settlement, the sum being Rs. 13,600. The petitioner enjoyed usufructs of the subject-matter of settlement peacefully and uninterruptedly during the year 1967-68. It is alleged in the petition that for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 the Forest Department accorded sanction to Messrs. Bengal Paper Mills to cut timber from the lot in question including this timber of the trees yielding Kendu leaves. The aforesaid Mills, under such illegal sanction, started cutting the trees with the result that no Kendu leaves were left for exploitation by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter requested the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No. 2, for a refund of the security money deposited by him to the tune of Rs. 3,400 aforesaid. His request was not acceded to. The petitioner alleges that, without any notice to him by the D.F.O. the Certificate Officer, Monghyr, respondent No. 4, presumably, at the instance of the Divisional Forest Officer, respondent No. 2, issued a notice to the petitioner which he duly received and by which he was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 12,275. When the petitioner came to know about the certificate case, he filed an objection on the 23rd of June, 1971 that there has been no service of notice on him under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The petitioner has also asserted in his writ petition that no requisition under Sec. 5 of the Act had been made by the Divisional Forest Officer and as such the issuance of a notice under Sections 4 and 6 under the signature of the Certificate Officer, respondent No. 4, a copy whereof has been marked Annexure - 2 to the application, was wholly illegal. Of course, in the writ petition the petitioner has also denied his liability for any payment on ground, inter alia, that, since the Forest Department represented by respondent No. 2 had committed breach of agreement and the petitioner had not been allowed to appropriate the usufructs during the balance two years of the period of settlement, he could not be fastened with any liability for those two years. We were, however, not invited by learned counsel for the parties to go into this question. In a counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, there is, of course, a denial with regard to the petitionerandapos;s plea of breach of agreement and of his non-liability to pay. It has also been stated in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit that the necessary requisition for instituting the certificate case against the petitioner by respondent No. 2 was duly filled up and signed and was sent along with letter No. 1622 dated 12-4-71. It has, however, been submitted in paragraph 12 aforesaid that the Divisional Forest Officer was a re