The central legal point established in the judgment is that for an amount to be recoverable under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, it must meet the definition of 'Public Demand' as per Section 3(6) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.2913 of 2021 in L.P.A. No.435 of 2019

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 211 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 211 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 2913 of 2021 stands allowed.

I.A. No.4422 of 2021 in L.P.A. No.185 of 2021

5. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

6. The office has reported that there is a delay of 474 days in filing the instant appeal but it appears that period of delay has not been mentioned in the interlocutory application.

7. Let learned counsel for the appellants make necessary correction in the interlocutory application by inserting period of delay in course of the day.

8. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 474 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

9. I.A. No. 4422 of 2021 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.435 of 2019 with L.P.A. No.185 of 2021

10. Both appeals arise out of common order dated 26.10.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.6958 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No.6953 of 2013, as such, both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

11. The instant appeals, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, are directed against the order/judgment dated 26.10.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6958 of 2013 with W.P.(C) No.6953 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the notice dated 13.09.2013 impugned in W.P.(C) No.6953 of 2013 and notice dated 26.08.2013 impugned in W.P.(C) No.6958 of 2013, issued against the writ petitioners under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1914) by which proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the amounts, have been quashed and set aside.

12. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceedings, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the seeds were supplied to the respondent State, bills were issued to them for the supplies and payment was also made against the bills. In the meantime, the respondent – State alleged that the quality of the seeds was not up to the mark and passed an order on 02.03.2012 by which further payment to the petitioner was stopped and whatever amount which was paid to the petitioner against the bills, was directed to be recovered and the petitioner was also blacklisted by the aforesaid order.

It is the further case of the writ petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 02.03.2012, a certificate proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner in connection with the amount which has been received by the writ petitioner against the bills and for the seeds already supplied by the writ petitioner.

At the aforesaid stage, the writ petitioner filed both the writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer taking the ground that the amount which is sought to be recovered, by way of Public Demand, is not a Public Demand and there is no agreement between the writ petitioner and the respondents so as to make the amount recoverable by way of Public Demand.

The further ground has been agitated to the effect that there is a dispute as to whether the quality of seeds supplied by the writ petitioner was up to the mark or not and such issue cannot be adjudicated by the Certifi