The court has the discretion to allow a petitioner to benefit from an expired amnesty scheme by directing the deposit of a specified amount to abate the pending certificate case.

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State.

2. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No. 71/01-02/ 141/01-02 and also the order dated 15.11.2005 and 13.9.2006 whereby and whereunder warrant of arrest was issued and the order of attachment was passed by Sub-Divisional Certificate Officer, Teghra.

3. Petitioners case is that he had purchased a tractor with trailor in the year 1978 bearing Registration No. BRI-1744 and BRI-1743 for agricultural purpose which was totally exempted from Road Permit & Fitness Certificate. The Tractor and Trailor were registered by the District Transport Officer, Begusarai and the certificate for registration was issued for the purpose of agriculture. The petitioner used them for the agriculture purpose only. The tax which was payable to the Transport Department for using road was regularly paid till 31.10.84. In the year 1984 due to heavy rain and flood the tractor got damaged due to which it cannot be brought on road and no tax was paid. Tractor thereafter could not ply over. It has also been stated that information regarding this was given to the District Transport Officer since before 1994, there was no requirement under the Act to surrender the papers in Form J, therefore, papers were not surrendered by the petitioner. The petitioner was not even knowing that the Certificate Case has been initiated against him for realisation of dues of tax amounting to Rs. 72,000/-. By order dated 15.11.2005 warrant of arrest as well as order of attachment was issued, then only he came to know about the initiation of certificate proceeding. Since the notice under section 7 of the Public Demand and Recovery Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was not received by the petitioner he could not file any objection under Section 9 of the Act. It has also been stated that a notification dated 19.5.2005 was issued under the signature of Secretary, Transport Department with a scheme of amnesty to all the owners of tractor and trailors engaged in transportation of Agricultural Produce on payment of certain amounts by depositing Rs. 5,000/-within 90 days of the notification. From the said scheme all the owners of tractors and trailors were going to be benefitted by making payment of one time tax token basis. Since the petitioner was not aware of this notification, he could not take benefit of this scheme, prayer of the petitioner is also for directing the respondent to consider his case under the scheme of amnesty.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 wherein it has been denied that any information was given by the petitioner regarding the damage caused to the tractor and trailor due to heavy rain and flood and as such the same was not being plied. Petitioners case regarding service of notice under Section 7 of the Act is also denied. Notice under Section 7 of the Act was duly issued and " received by the son of the petitioner, as such the presumption is that the petitioner had knowledge about initiation of Certificate Proceeding. In spite of notice when petitioner did not appear before the authority as such warrant of arrest was issued against him and an order of attachment of his immovable property was passed. So far the benefit under the amnesty scheme is concerned, it was available to him but he failed to deposit Rs. 5,000/-. For this the petitioner himself is responsible.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has referred a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2007(2) PLJR 215 (Haldhar Pd. Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) wherein similar circumstance petitioners prayer regarding consideration of his case under amnesty scheme was allowed and the respondents were directed to accept Rs. 5000/- deposited by the petitioner within specified time for allowing him benefit of amnesty scheme in spite of the fact that the period of amnesty scheme has already expired.

6. This applicati