ORDER :

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of order dated 03.01.2013 passed by the Respondent No.2 directing issuance of bailable warrant inter alia on the ground that the objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1914) has still not been decided and during its pendency the aforesaid bailable warrant of arrest has been issued.

2. The short issue which has been raised on behalf of the petitioners questioning the jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer as to whether by keeping the objection required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, the Certificate Officer can come out with the bailable warrant of arrest for recovery of the requisitioned amount as requisitioned by the concerned authority by way of public demand.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the statutory provision as contained under the Act, 1914 contains a provision that whenever a public demand is being decided to be recovered, the same will be forwarded before the Certificate Officer by the concerned competent authority for its recovery and thereafter, the Certificate Officer will issue a notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 enabling the concerned certificate debtor to file objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914.

The notice has been issued under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 which has been replied by making objection said to have been filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 on 25.11.2010 and while keeping the same pending, the Certificate Officer has come out with the bailable warrant of arrest on 16.01.2013, being aggrieved with the same, the instant writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. It has been submitted by making a ground that if the statute provides to deal with the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, the same is mandatory to be decided by the Certificate Officer before taking any coercive measure, but, herein, the action of the Certificate Officer in issuing bailable warrant of arrest is absolutely contrary to the statutory mandate and, as such, the order dated 16.01.2013 directing for issuance of bailable warrant of arrest is required to be quashed and set aside.

5. Mr. K.K.Singh, learned S.C.-VI, appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has submitted by taking aid of the stand inter alia taken in the counter affidavit filed on 19.12.2020 wherein at paragraphs 12 and 18 the stand has been taken that the objection which was required to be filed by the petitioners since is beyond the period of thirty days and as such, the same will be construed to be not an objection within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act, 1914 reason being that the objection filed beyond the period of thirty days, as provided under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 will be construed to be redundant in the eyes of law. Therefore, if in that pretext the warrant of arrest has been on 16.01.2013, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error.

He has taken the further ground by referring to stand taken in Para 19 that in spite of several opportunities having been granted to the writ petitioners, they have not pressed the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 and, as such, they cannot now take the ground of pendency of the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914.

6. In response to the aforesaid submission, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that even accepting that the writ petitioners has not chosen to appear on various dates, even then the objection filed by the writ petitioners under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 ought to have been dealt with on its merit but, in any case, keeping the objection pending and taking coercive measure by issuance of bailable warrant of arrest cannot be said to be proper compliance of the statutory manda