SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 1141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Smt. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
CWJC No.8377 of 2016
(25.10.2024)
Satish Kumar Sinha ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s Jai Ram Singh, Keshab Raj.
For the Respondents: Mr. Awanish Nandan Sinha, GP-11.
For the State : Mr. Nilotpal Sharma, AC to Ex. GP-21.
For the BSFC : M/s Shailendra Kr. Singh, Utkarsha Utpal.

Headnote:

Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 – Sections 7 & 9 – Initiation of certificate proceeding and objection denying the liability – The petitioner filed his objections under Section 9 of the Act – Without passing the final order the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount and warrant of arrest was issued – It is the duty of the District Certificate Officer to pass appropriate order (final order) under Section 10 of the Act, considering the objections filed by the petitioner u/s 9 of the Act – The respondent-District Certificate Officer directed to pass appropriate final orders in the certificate case within a period of three months – Writ petition disposed of. (Paras 6 to 8)

G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.—This Writ petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Certificate Case No. 61/14-15, pending before respondent No. 4 i.e. Certificate Officer, Banka, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 36,08,831.50/- under Bihar and Orrisa Public Recovery, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition is that the petitioner is a Government servant and was posted as Cooperative Extension Officer at Amarpur-cum-Krya Kendra Officer, Amarpur (Banka). The petitioner and one other employee, namely, Sanjay Kumar were deputed for purchasing paddy and to store it, in Storeroom for the year 2012-13. The petitioner was on duty upto 30.04.2013 in Amarpur Block and thereafter, he was transferred to Lakhisarai District. The petitioner got himself relieved on 16.06.2013, by the order of the District Officer.

3. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he locked the door of the Storeroom and went to the new transferred post and by the time he returned, he did not found paddy in the Storeroom and another lock was kept on the gate of the Storeroom. The petitioner lodged an F.I.R. before the local Police Station. The paddy was lost, in the absence of the petitioner he cannot be held responsible. Later, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the Certificate Case No. 61/2014-2015 was initiated against him by respondent No. 3 for recovery of Rs. 36,08,315.50/-, for which the petitioner has filed his objection under Section 9 of the Act and without passing the final order, the District Certificate Officer, Banka directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of the Certificate on or before 31.03.2016. Pursuant to it, Warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the same, the present Writ petition was filed.

4. This Court, vide order dated 20.06.2016 has stayed all further proceedings in Certificate Case No. 61/2014-2015, including the Warrant of arrest.

5. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.

6. On perusal of records, it is evident that the petitioner has filed his objections under Section 9 of the Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, without passing final order the petitioner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 36,08,315.50/- and the Warrant of arrest was issued.

7. It is the duty of the District Certificate Officer, Banka to pass appropriate order (final order) under Section 10 of Bihar and Orrisa Public Recovery Act, considering the objection filed by the petitioner u/s 9 of the said Act, therefore, the respondent-District Certificate Officer, Banka, is directed to pass appropriate final orders in Certificate Case No. 61/14-15 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

8. With the abovesaid observations, the Writ petition stands disposed of.

9. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top