JUDGMENT :

Learned counsels for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“1 (a) For quashing the entire proceedings of Certificate Case 103 (SBI) / 03-04 pending in the court of Sri Vijay Kumar, Certificate Officer, Ranchi, including the order dated 18.3.2005 to 6.8.2007 whereby and whereunder the Certificate Officer, Ranchi issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner and further directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) without deciding the objection U/s 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.

(b) That the petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondent bank to give / supply the insurance policy to the petitioner, which was done by bank as per arrangement at the cost of petitioner, so that the petitioner may claim damages against insured amount from the insurance company.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the order dated 29.03.2007 passed by the Certificate Officer whereby, the petitioner has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- without deciding the objection filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 9 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act. Learned counsel submits that though objection filed under Section 9 has not been placed on record, but the order dated 29.03.2007 itself indicates that the petitioner had filed petition for production of certain documents by the respondent – bank. Learned counsel submits that whatever be the nature of objection, the Certificate Officer ought to have decided the same prior to directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.20,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that so far as objection of the petitioner is concerned, the same is not on record. However, the same can be considered by the Certificate Officer in accordance with law if appropriate order is passed by this Court directing the parties to appear before the Certificate Officer on a particular date.

5. Upon this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to appear before the Certificate Officer on 27.01.2023 at 11 a.m. if such an order is passed by this court.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the order dated 29.03.2007 passed by the learned Certificate Officer, it appears that certain petition was filed by the petitioner asking for certain documents from the bank and the Certificate Officer without passing any order on the said petition had directed the petitioner to immediately deposit Rs.20,000/-. From the entire order sheet annexed along with the writ petition, it appears that the bank has not taken any interest in the matter after filing of the certificate case before the learned Certificate Officer.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 29.03.2007 asking the petitioner to deposit Rs.20,000/- before taking the petition filed by the petitioner to a logical end, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is accordingly set aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the Certificate Officer for taking appropriate decision in accordance with law.

8. The parties are directed to appear before the Certificate Officer on 27.01.2023 at 11 a.m. The respondent-bank shall also produce the documents available with the respondent – bank including up to date statement of accounts with a copy for the petitioner. The learned Certificate Officer is directed to finally decide the certificate case in accordance with law within a period of three months from 27.01.2023.

9. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.