JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 3 in Certificate Case No. 04/2012-13 whereby the objection filed by the petitioner on 06.06.2012 under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1914’] has been rejected without assigning any reason directing the petitioner to deposit the remaining certificate amount of Rs. 4,86,412/- along with interest after adjustment of Rs. 20,000/- earlier deposited by the certificate-debtor (the petitioner). Further prayer has been made for quashing the notice issued vide Memo No. 377 dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) by the respondent No. 3 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 9,52,680/- i.e. actual demand along with the interest and Talbana.

3. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the respondent No. 3, is that though the petitioner by filing objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, had denied his liability to pay the certificate amount on different grounds, the same has been summarily rejected on the request of the requisitioning officer without assigning any reason. Hence, on that score alone, the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 is liable to be set aside.

4. Mr. Mohan Dubey, learned AC to AG appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the respondent No. 3 would itself suggest that the petitioner failed to make out any ground with respect to denial of the amount sought to be recovered through the certificate proceeding and as such the said order has been passed by the respondent No. 3 for realisation of the certificate dues along with the interest after making adjustment of Rs. 20,000/- earlier paid by the petitioner. Thus, no interference of this Court is warranted with the certificate proceeding. The present writ petition is also not maintainable as the petitioner has got alternative/efficacious/statutory recourse of preferring an appeal against the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 passed by the respondent No. 3.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the present writ petition.

6. Section 9 of the Act, 1914 provides that the certificate-debtor may within 30 days from the service of the notice issued to him under Section 7, or where the notice has not been duly served, within thirty days from the execution of any process for enforcing the certificate, present a petition in the prescribed form signed and verified in the prescribed manner, denying his liability, in whole or in part to the Certificate Officer in whose office the certificate is filed or to the Certificate Officer, who is executing the certificate.

7. Section 10 of the Act, 1914 mandates that the Certificate Officer in whose office the original certificate is filed shall hear the petition, take evidence (if necessary) and determine whether the certificate-debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount for which the certificate was signed; and may set aside, modify or vary the certificate accordingly.

8. It would thus be evident from Section 10 of the Act, 1914 that after filing of objection by the certificate-debtor under Section 9, the Certificate Officer has to determine as to whether the certificate-debtor is liable for payment of whole or part of the certificate amount. The Certificate Officer is also conferred with the power to take evidence, if the same is found necessary and even to set-aside, modify or vary the certificate amount based on the materials available on record.

9. So far as the impugned order dated 24.07.2019 is concerned, on perusal of the same, it would be evident that no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the respondent No. 3 while rejecting the petitioner’s objection filed under Se