The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for scrupulous adherence to statutory provisions, the accountability of the executive, and the limitations on detaining a certificate debtor in civil prison under the Public Demand Recovery Act.

NAVANITI PD.SINGH, J.

1. This case shows the bizzare state of affairs prevailing at certain levels in the State and unfortunately caused by executive who though love to accept responsibility but hate to execute it responsibly.

2. The present writ application has been filed for quashing the detention of the Petitioner in civil prison pursuant to the warrant issued on 2nd August, 2006, by the Certificate Officer, Barh (Patna) in Certificate Case No. 2 of 2006-2007 instituted at the behest of the Punjab National Bank, Barh and for release of the Petitioner from civil prison to enable him to file his objection to the certificate proceedings which in law he is entitled to do.

3. Heard Shri Partha Sarthy, learned Counsel in support of the writ application and Shri Amanullah, learned SC17 appearing for the State. No one appears for Respondent No. 3-Punjab National Bank though the name of their Counsel Shri Sunil Kumar Singh No. 1 appear who has been served with a copy of the writ application.

4. The short point raised that certificate proceedings were initiated by the Punjab National Bank, Barh, against the Petitioner and was registered on 10th June, 2006. Notice was directed to be issued in this regard as contemplated by Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act 1914(hereinatter referred to as "the Act"). The copy of the notice with service report has been annexed as Ahnexure 2.

5. The service report shows that the notice was served on the brother of the Petitioner on 1.6th July, 2006. Learned Counsel for the State states that probably the notice was served on the Petitioner witnessed by his brother.

6. Be that as it may, it cannot be disputed that the notice was not served prior to 16th July, 2006. Under Section 9 of the Act, a certificate debtor has one months.time statutorily to file his objection and, therefore, he had time at least up to 16th August, 2006, to file his objection. The Certificate Officer notes in his Order dated 14th July, 2006, that the service report of notice not received. On the next date i.e. 2nd August, 2006, the notes that the service report has been received, but the certificate debtor is not present, the requisitioning Bank is present and mechanically then proceeded to issue the distress warrant and post the case for 14th August, 2006. Immediately thereafter the Petitioner is arrested and on 14th August, 2006, produced before the Certificate Officer. The Petitioners prayer for release is refused and he is remanded to civil custody by Order dated 14th August, 2006. It is this action that is challenged in the present proceedings.

7. From the facts stated it would be seen that in law, the Petitioner had time at least up to 15th August, 2006, to file his objection throwing the statutory provisions to wind, therefore, taken into custody in a most mechanical, unlawful and illegal manner even before the said date. This is clearly a case of illegal detention and shows the high handedness of the Certificate Officer.

8. This Court has repeatedly held that resort to detention though available in law has to be taken as a last resort as it has severe manifestations,Some of those decisions are: 1994(1) PLJR 595 (Ashok Kumar Singh V/s. State of Bihar), a Division Bench judgment of this Court, and a recent decision in the case of Dasharath Sharma v. State of Bihar, since reported in 2005(3) PLJR 687.

9. Noticing the aforesaid fact in Order dated 27th September, 2006, this Court has noted that Court would proceed against the Certificate Officer for disregard to law and as directed counter affidavit to be filed on behalf of the Certificate Officer, in question, and the Respondent-bank.

10. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Certificate. Officer and the Bank.

11. It is admitted that it is on 10th June, 2006, that notices were issued in the certificate proceedings. It is further admitted that it is on 16th July, 2006, that the process server finally served the notices. It is said that as the noti