JUDGMENT :

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects, as pointed out by the office, are ignored.

3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No. 08 of 2019-20 initiated by the District Certificate Officer, Bokaro (the respondent no. 3) on the requisition of the respondent no.1. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 31.07.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby warrant of arrest under Order XXI Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been issued to the petitioner in the said certificate case for non-payment of Rs.22,53,076/- and to stay the proceeding of the certificate case during pendency of the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent no. 1 (the requisitioning officer) in sending the requisition to the respondent no. 3 so as to initiate a certificate proceeding for realisation of the aforesaid amount is completely illegal and there has been no adjudication by a competent court of law regarding any violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In fact, the learned District Judge-II-cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Bokaro, vide judgment/award dated 02.01.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 09 of 2016, had given liberty to the respondent no. 1 to realise the compensation amount from the petitioner if he had violated the terms of the policy. Since the said aspect was not determined by the M.A.C.T., Bokaro, the petitioner filed an application in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 09 of 2016 praying inter alia to accordingly review the judgment/award dated 02.01.2019 passed in the said case. However, the District Judge-Ist-cum-M.A.C.T, Bokaro, vide order dated 21.12.2021 rejected the said review petition preferred by the petitioner. In the meantime, on requisition of the respondent no. 1, a notice dated 08.01.2021 was again issued by the respondent no. 3 under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (in short, “the Act, 1914”) calling upon the petitioner to pay the certificate amount of Rs.22,53,076/-. Since the issue as to whether there has been any violation of the terms of the insurance policy by the petitioner has not yet been determined, the respondent no. 3 has no jurisdiction to initiate the certificate proceeding on the requisition of the respondent no. 1.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 as well as the respondent nos. 2 and 3 jointly submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 60 of the Act, 1914 against the issuance of warrant of arrest dated 31.07.2021 issued by the respondent no. 3 in the concerned certificate case. Moreover, neither the judgment/award dated 02.01.2019 passed by the learned District Judge-II-cum-M.A.C.T, Bokaro nor the order of review dated 21.12.2021 passed by the learned District Judge-1st-cum-M.A.C.T, Bokaro in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 09 of 2016 is under challenge in the present writ petition. There is no infirmity on the part of the respondent no. 1 in sending the requisition to the respondent no. 3 for initiating certificate case for realisation of the awarded amount from the petitioner and hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the liability of the petitioner to pay the amount for which certificate proceeding has been initiated, has not yet been determined. Though the District Judge-II-cum-M.A.C.T., Bokaro, vide judgment/award dated 02.01.2019, had given liberty to the respondent no. 1 to get the awarded amount realised from the petitioner if he had violated the terms of the insurance policy, the said aspect has not yet been adjudicated