1. These writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order as the facts and point involved are the same.

2. The validity of the certificate proceedings has been challenged on the ground that the certificates, which are the basis of the proceedings have not been signed by the Certificate Officer. In order to decide the point counsel for the State was earlier directed to produce the original records. Mr. K.P Yadav, the State counsel on the basis of records stated that the certificates in question have not been signed by the Certificate Officer.

3. Mr. Kamendra Kumar, counsel for the respondent Bank, however, submitted that omission to sign the certificate does not go to the root of the matter. It is at best a mere irregularity which can be cured. Reliance was placed on Dwarika Ram Jagatranka alias Dwarika Prasad Jagatranka Vs. State of Bihar (1963 BLJR 655). We have examined the said decision. The facts of that case were quite distinguishable. The point at issue is fully covered by the language of section 6 of the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act itself. The said section read as hereunder:

"6. Filing of certificate on requisition. - On receipt of an