The court held that the failure to file the requisition in the proper form and to deposit the court fee along with the requisition did not render the certificate proceeding void, as the requisition was duly verified and the court-fee had been duly filed, although not along with the requisition.

Radha Mohan Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner in this writ application prays for quashing of the whole Certificate Proceeding No.1363/bank of 1979-80 pending in the court of the Commi ssioner, Patna (respondent No.2) as also the notice issued therein as contained in Annexure 1 and the orders, as contained in Annexures 2 to 5 of the writ application.

2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the State Bank of India, kankarbagh Branch, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) advanced rs.88,500/- to one Saiyed Muztar Imam, who was initially made respondent no.6, but later with the permission of the Court, his name was deleted on 142.1984, for purchase of Mini Bus No. BHP 8575 under Unemployed graduate Scheme. The petitioner, who happens to be relation of said Saiyed muztar Imam, became guarantor as against the said loan. However, later when the said Imam started to avoid repayment of the loan in question, the petitioner vide letter dated 3.7.1979 informed the Bank to take immediate action against said Imam, as a result of which the Mini bus in question was seized by the respondent Bank with the help of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner requested the respondent Bank to hand over the bus in question to him on the same terms and conditions on which it was given to Imam but the said bus was auction sold by the Bank on a very low price of Rs.64,000/-. Thereafter for recovery of the balance amount of Rs 11,808 91 inclusive of the interest and miscellaneous expenses, the respondent Bank sent a requisition under the Bihar and Orissa Public demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereafter the certificate proceeding in question was initiated against Imam as well as against the petitioner.

3. On 21.1 1981 the petitioner appeared in the said certificate proceeding and filed a petition denying his liability for payment of certificate money, upon which the Certificate Officer issued warrant of arrest and attachment order against Imam On 13.2 1981 Imam was arrested and produced before the Certificate Officer and inspite of the objection by the petitioner he was released on furnishing bonds for which Safdar Imam and sharfuddin, who were initially made respondents no.7 and 8 in the writ application but later deleted with the permission of the Court on 14.2 1984 as was done in the case of Imam, furnished security to the effect that in default of payment they will he liable for non-payment with further undertaking that they will deposit Rs.3,000/- out of certificate money upto 21-2-1981. However, no money was deposited inspite of the aforesaid undertaking given by Safdar Imam and Sharfuddin. The petitioner has claimed that he several times prayed before the Certificate Officer to take action against the said three persons, including Imam, but no action was taken against them and vide order dated 26 9.1981 (Annex-2) the Certificate officer issued notice for realisation of certificate money from the petitioner.

4. On 1.11.1981 the petitioner received a notice dated 19.10.1981 for payment of certificate money with a threat that the land of the petitioner will be auction sold A copy of the said notice has been annexed as annexure 1. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition before the Certificate officer on 14.11.1981 to review his order dated 26 9.1981 which was rejected on 28-11-1981. True copies of the said two orders have been annexed as annexures 2 and 3, respectively Against the said two orders the petitioner filed revision under section 62 of the Act before the Collector, Patna (respondent no.3) on the ground that the Certificate Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate proceeding on the requisition submitted by the respondent Bank under section 4 of the Act without depositing Court fee. Further, the petitioner also contended that he is not a certificate debtor, thus, the Certificate Officer had no power to issue notice on him. The said revision wat numbered as Revision Case No.109 of 1981-82