1. This letters patent appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge by which on the ground that the appellant has not exhausted the statutory remedy of revision available to him under section 62 of the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act, his writ petition was dismissed.

2. The short facts of the case are that a commercial connection was granted to M/s Satyam Roller Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the company) on the basis of an agreement entered between the company and the Bihar State Electricity Board on 5.12.89. The company failed to pay the electric dues and, in the circumstances. Certificate case (Electric) No. 34/95-96 was initiated by the Certificate Officer, Siwan, on the requisition of the Electricity Board. In the column of the Certificate-debtors the name of the appellant was also mentioned besides that of the company i.e. M/s Satyam Roller Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd. The appellant prayed for deletion of his name on the ground that the liability in question being corporate liability, his inclusion in the certificate proceeding was unwarranted and illegal. The plea found favour with the Certificate Officer who by his order dated 20.12.95 after hearing the Board ordered for deletion of the appellants name from the proceedings. On 27.9.96 the Board filed a petition to mention the name of the appellant in the description of company i.e. M/s Satyam Roller Flour Mill. The prayer was turned down by the Certificate Officer on 11.11.90. The Board preferred appeal before the Collector of the District who took the view that as the agreement had been executed by the appellant his presence in the proceedng was essential and accordingly by order dated 9.10.2001 directed that the appellants name be incorporated and thus set aside the order of the Certificate Officer. The appellant preferred writ petition, giving rise to this appeal, being CWJC No. 2003/2002 which was dismissed in limine on the ground that the appellant has not exhausted the statutory remedy of revision available to him under section 62 of the Act, as indicated above.

3. Shri Navaniti Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the entire proceeding as regards the appellant was without jurisdiction inasmuch he cannot be fastened with the corporate liability of the company. The name of the appellant having been deleted by a reasoned order by the Certificate Officer which was passed after hearing the Board and against which the Board did not prefer any appeal or revision. The name of the appellant could not be re-included in the array of the parties in the proceeding. In support of the contention as to the nature of liability which is subject matter of the proceeding, counsel placed reliance on Damodar Prasad Nathani & anr. V/s. The State of Bihar & ors., 1999 (1) PLJR 522, Smt. Sarla Devi Agrawala V/s. The State of Bihar & ors., 1879 BBCJ 213, Bejai Singh Dugar V/s. Certificate Officer, Bhagalpur, 1965 BLJR 341, M.P. Agarwalla & anr. V/s. Union of India & ors., 1963 BLJR 127 and Harihar Prasad V/s. Bansi Missir & ors., AIR 1931 Patna 321. He also referred to decisions in (2001) 9 SCC 275, M/s Filterco & anr. V/s. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. & anr. (1986) 2 SCC 103. Collector of Customs & Excise, Cochin & ors. V/s. M/s A.S. Bava, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 13, and Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta V/s. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalay, Sitapur (U.P.) & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 525 in support of the contention that existence of alternative remedy is no bar to entertaining of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He submitted that though the remedy by way of revision under section 62 of the Act is available to the appellant, in the facts and circumstances, the refusal to entertain the writ petition by the learned Single Judge was not correct, inasmuch as by reason of the proviso to section 62 of the Act the appellant will have to pay 40% of the cert