Aggrieved by order dated 24.06.2013 in Certificate Appeal Case No.12 of 2013, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 was not entertained by the Certificate Officer on the ground of delay and thus, there is no determination of the certificate amount by the Certificate Officer. It is contended that the provision under Section 62 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 is thus, not attracted in the present case and the dismissal of the Certificate Appeal Case No.12 of 2013 on the ground of noncompliance of 40% deposit of the certificate amount is not sustainable in law.

3. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned counsel for the respondent-Union Bank of India supporting the impugned order dated 24.06.2013 submits that the statutory provision under Section 62 of 1914 Act is mandatory unless, the deposit as required under Section 62 is waived on showing reasonable cause by the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand also opposes the writ petition.

4. The facts of the case as narrated in the writ petitio