The statutory duty of the certificate officer to consider the objection filed by the certificate-debtor and pass an appropriate order under Section 10 of the Act, 1914.

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 2018-19 initiated by the District Certificate Officer, Bokaro (the respondent no. 3) on requisition of the respondent no. 1 and to stay the proceeding of the said 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 requisition to the respondent no. 3 so as to initiate a certificate proceeding for realisation of an amount of Rs.4,20,843/- is completely illegal as 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 22.05.2018 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 33 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. Thereafter, Certificate Case No. 08/2018-19 was registered by the respondent No.3, on requisition of the respondent No.1 and notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.11.2018 under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1914’) for realization of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner. The petitioner filed show cause reply on 04.03.2019/05.03.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the issue regarding violation of the terms of the policy was not determined by the M.A.C.T., Bokaro, the petitioner filed an application dated 06.08.2021 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 33 of 2016 praying inter alia to accordingly review the judgment/award dated 22.05.2018 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, a warning notice was ordered to be issued by the respondent no. 3 on 05.04.2021 in Certificate Case No. 08/2018-19 calling upon the petitioner to pay the certificate amount of Rs.4,20,843/- Further, on 24.06.2021, the respondent No.3 again ordered to issue warning notice to the petitioner and on 26.07.2021, bailable warrant was ordered to be issued against the petitioner. 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.

6. 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 issuance of bailable warrant dated 26.07.2021 issued by the respondent no. 3 in the concerned certificate case. Moreover, neither the judgment/award dated 22.05.2018 passed by the learned District Judge- II-cum-M.A.C.T, Bokaro nor the order of review dated 21.12.2021 by the learned District Judge-1st-cum-M.A.C.T, Bokaro in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 33 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 to initiate certificate case for realisation of the awarded amount from the petitioner and hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

8. 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 ha