The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a Certificate Officer from a corporation was without jurisdiction and any actions taken by such officer were null and void.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. These batch cases have been taken up to hear on preliminary jurisdictional issue regarding the validity of the appointment of Respondent Certificate Officer.

2. The admitted case is that Mr. O.P. Singh being the Law Officer of Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation (herein- after to be referred to as BICICO) has been appointed as per Section 3(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) as the Certificate Officer for the purpose of recovery of dues payable to BICICO which dues are deemed to be the Public Demand as per the admitted provision of Section 3(6) readwith Schedule-I Entry 15(iii) of the Act.

3. Challenge of the appointment of the Certificate Officer is primarily on two grounds :

(i) the expression "any officer" as per provision of Section 3(3) of the Act only refer to an Officer of the State Government, if not that of the Collectorate alone and the said expression has to be read "ejusdem generis" and take context and colour from the words "Collector, Sub-Divisional Officer" preceding the general word "any officer" in the said Section. In any case when drastic powers including that of "attachment and arrest" have been vested in a Certificate Officer by the Act of 1914, then such powers can never be vested to a person other than a Government servant.

(ii) the person appointed as Certificate Officer must inspire confidence and be free from likelihood of being biased on the principle of "justice should not only be done but also should be shown to be done." Any Officer of the BICICO cannot be appointed as a Certificate Officer in the teeth of such principle i.e. a person cannot be judge of his own case.

4. I shall take up the matter one by one as per the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. For consideration of the first point the definition of the Certificate Officer as arisen under Section 3(3) of the Act, 1914 may be reiterated as follows :

Section 3(3)"Certificate Officer mean a Collector, a Sub-Divisional Officer and any officer appointed by the Collector with the sanction of Commissioner, to perform the function of a Certificate Officer."

It is an admitted position that the Respondent Certificate Officer Mr. O.P. Singh is neither a Collector nor a Sub-Divisional Officer. In that case, he must come within the expression of "any officer" as provided under the above definition of Certificate Officer and this is the moot question which has been challenged from the side of the petitioners in these batch cases. It is also an admitted position that Mr. O.P. Singh is a legal executive under the employment of BICICO which happens to be the Certificate Holder. It is also an admitted fact that BICICO is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The majority of its shares are held by the Bihar Government. It is a Financial institution of a commercial nature sponsored by the Bihar Government. But it has not a separate entity as a Company and not a department of the Bihar Government. Its entity is totally separate and distinct from the Government of Bihar.

5. Mr. O.R Singh is basically a Government employee but he had been deputed to the Company by the Bihar Government and he has been appointed as a Certificate Officer while he was serving as an employee of BICICO, a Company incorporated for the purpose of carrying on commercial activities. In that way, when Mr. O.P Singh had been appointed as a Certificate Officer he cannot be construed to be a Government Officer rather he can be construed to be a Law executive employed in the BICICO only. Now, in such an admitted position it must be decided whether the Respondent Certificate Officer comes within the purview of the meaning of expression "any officer" as defined in Section 3(3) of the Act, 1914.

6. It is the submission on the part of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the batch cases that in no way the Respondent Certificate Officer