1999 Supreme(Pat) 393
PATNA HIGH COURT
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
Gita Devi
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11 of 1998 ;
Decided On : MAY 10, 1999
A certificate proceeding initiated against a dead person is void and a fresh certificate must be made against the legal representative of the deceased.
Headnote:
PUBLIC DEMAND RECOVERY ACT - SECTION 52 - CERTIFICATE PROCEEDING AGAINST DEAD PERSON - VOID - FRESH CERTIFICATE AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 52 AND BOARD OF REVENUE INSTRUCTIONS - COURT QUASHED CERTIFICATE PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST DEAD PERSON.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the widow of the deceased owner of a truck, challenged a certificate proceeding initiated against her late husband for arrears of motor vehicle tax. The petitioner argued that the proceeding was void as it was initiated against a dead person.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the certificate proceeding initiated against the deceased person was void and the Certificate Officer had no jurisdiction to continue the proceeding against the petitioner unless a fresh certificate was signed and a proceeding was initiated against the legal representatives of the deceased.
Issues: Whether a certificate proceeding initiated against a dead person can continue against the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 52 of the Public Demand Recovery Act and the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue to hold that a certificate proceeding initiated against a dead person is void and a fresh certificate must be made against the legal representative of the deceased.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the entire certificate proceeding and the impugned order dated 16.10.97.
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No.MVT 499 of 1994-95 including the order dated 16.10.97 as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application.
2. The petitioners case is that she is an old widow of late Kali Prasad Agrawal who died on 23.5.83. When the petitioner was out of station in the month of June, 96 she learnt that notice of the certificate proceeding in the name of her late husband was posted at her door. She made enquiry and got the relevant documents from the concerned office. She came to know that for the arrears of motor vehicle tax in respect of truck No.BHR 6719 for the period from 1.7.78 to 31.3.93 a certificate proceeding was initiated against her late husband on 21.6.93. Petitioners further case is that she in good faith filed an application before the respondent no.2, the Certificate Officer on 7.8.96 stating true state of affairs and prayed to drop the proceeding on the ground that the proceeding against a dead person was not maintainable. It is alleged that the Certificate Officer, without verifying the legal position in terms of the impugned order dated 16.10.97 rejected the petition of the petitioner treating it to be an objection and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount by 31.10.97, failing which distress warrant will be issued.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 stating, inter alia, that the husband of the petitioner was the owner of truck No.BHR 6719 and no tax and additional tax were paid by him since 1.7.78. Due to non-payment of tax a requisition was issued by the District Transport Officer in 1995 for recovery of Rs.1,37,608.44 paise from the late husband of the petitioner. It is further stated that the case was filed against Kali Prasad Agrawal whose name still stands in the R.C.ook of the vehicle. It is further stated that the owner of the vehicle died on 23.5.83 but the Transport Department was not intimated about his death and his name continued in the owner book. After the death of Kali Prasad the legal heir of dead person should have got his vehicle transferred in her name.
4. I have heard Mr. A.K.Lal learned counsel for the petitioner and learned JC to GA.
5. Mr.Lal assailed the impugned order as being iflegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the certificate proceeding initiated against a dead person is vitiated in law. In this connection, learned counsel has drawn my attention to Section 52 of the Public Demand Recovery Act and also the rules and instructions issued by the Board of Revenue under the Act.
6. Admittedly, the late husband of the petitioner was the owner of the vehicle in question and he died on 23.5.83. It has not been disputed by the respondents that a requisition was issued on the basis of which a certificate proceeding was initiated against a dead person. The question, therefore, falls for consideration is whether a certificate proceeding initiated against a dead person will continue against heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, In this connection, Section 52 of the Act is necessary to be looked into, which reads as under:
"52. Procedure on death of certificate-debtor.(1) Where certificate debtor dies before the certificate has been fully satisfied, the Certificate Officer may, after serving upon the legal representative of the deceased a notice in the prescribed form proceed to execute the certificate against such legal representative; and the provisions of the Act shall apply as if such legal representative were the certificate-debtor and as if such notice were a notice under Section 7: Provided that where the certificate is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of; and, for the purpo