M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the validity of the notices issued to them in various certificate proceedings under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (shortly the said Act) for realization of rent of the shops in occupation of the petitioners. The petitioners have raised a pure question of law as to whether the Certificate Officer has any authority or jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 7 of the said Act without complying the mandatory requirements of law.

2. The petitioners are carrying on business in the open market in the shops allotted to them in the Principal Market Yard. Hazaribagh. The rent of the shops was time to time enhanced and for the recovery of rent respondent No. 3, the Secretary. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Hazaribagh filed requisitions before the Certificate Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate, Sadar. Hazaribagh and on tile basis of the requisition certificate cases were instituted. The Certificate Officer, on receipt of the records and on deposit of Court fee by the certificate holder, issued notices under Section 7 of the said Act.

3. Mr. J.K. Pasari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners sub-milled that no certificate, as required under Sections 5 and 6 of the said Act, was ever served upon the petitioners. According to the learned counsel a certificate, as required in Form I, has not even been prepared and signed by the Certificate Officer. learned counsel submitted that in absence of mandatory compliance of the provisions of the Act the certificate proceedings are vitiated in law and the notices issued by the Certificate Officer are wholly without jurisdiction.

4. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Market Committee, on the other hand, submitted that rent of the shops were time to time enhanced and the validity of the enhancement of rent has been affirmed by this Court, Learned counsel submitted that even if notices were issued without serving certificate in Form I, the same being a procedural error and irregularity, the certificate proceedings cannot vitiate and the notices cannot be quashed.

5. On 30.8.2004 when these cases were taken-up for admission this Court directed the State counsel to produce the records of the certificate cases and pursuant to that the records of the certificate cases were produced on 13.9.2004. From perusal of the certificate cases it transpires that no certificate in Form I was signed by the Certificate Officer before issuance of notices under Section 7 of the said Act. As a matter of fact, no certificate in Form I was prepared and signed by the Certificate Officer and the same are not on records.

6. Mrs. Sheela Prasad. learned G.P. IV very fairly admitted that certificate in Form I was not prepared before issuance of notices under Section 7 of the said Act.

7. Section 5 of the said Act provides that when any public demand payable to any person other than the Collector is due, such person may send to the Certificate Officer a written requisition in the prescribed form. Every such requisition shall be signed and verified in the prescribed manner. Section 6 of the said Act casts a mandate on the Certificate Officer to record his satisfaction with regard to the fact that the demand is recoverable and shall sign the certificate in the prescribed form. The reason is that once a certificate is issued by the Certificate Officer in exercise of powers conferred by this section, it becomes a decree. It is well settled that signing of certificate by the Certificate Officer is not an empty formality. The Certificate Officer is expected to apply his mind and may sign the certificate on receipt of the requisition but only after being satisfied that the demand is recoverable by a certificate proceeding,

8. The proposition of law has been well settled by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court as far back as in 1958 in the case of Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. Rai Bahadu