A certificate officer may also be a certificate holder, but objections regarding jurisdiction must be resolved by a non-biased officer to maintain principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel present on behalf of the parties.

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

“For issuance of appropriate Writ/Writs, Order/Orders or Direction/Directions, in the Nature of Certiorari for quashing the paper publication [vide Annexure-4] published in Hindi daily news paper – Prabhat Khabar, Deoghar Edition dated 22.9.2019 (being Item No. 21) by which it was notified being demand of arrears of Road Tax and Additional Tax from the petitioner, on account of passenger Bus No. JH-15D-6131.

AND

For quashing the issuance of Body Warrant Dt. 13.9.2019 (Annexure-3) against Petitioner in terms of Section 38 of Bihar and Odisha Public Demand Recover Act 1940, which has been issued contrary to the fact that a ‘No Objection Certificate’ have been deemed to be given by the DTO Deoghar to Petitioner.

AND

For quashing the demand of Rs.5,82,585/- and its interest thereto Rs.69,910.20 = Total Rs.6,52,492/- from the Petitioner, by the Respondent Authority.”

Arguments of the Petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the solitary point which he wants to argue in the present case is as to whether the District Transport Officer, Deoghar, who is also the certificate holder, could also be the certificate officer of the present case. He has submitted that the objection, if any, that may be filed in terms of Section 9 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 has to be filed before the Certificate officer and since the certificate officer is the certificate holder, he cannot be a judge in his own case and therefore the present writ petition has been filed.

4. During the course of argument, no other point has been argued in this case. This has also been recorded in the order dated 27.11.2024.

Arguments of the Respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no illegality in the appointment of the Certificate Officer in the present case. He has referred to paragraph 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit dated 25.11.2024 and submitted that the District Transport Officers in serial no. 1 to 14 of the letter dated 06.01.2020 were appointed as a certificate officers by the sanction of the Commissioner who sanctioned the same vide letter no. 143 dated 05.10.2018. He has submitted that Notification has been annexed which is in terms of Section 3(3) of the BIHAR AND ORISSA PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT , 1914. The learned counsel has also submitted that the recovery through certificate proceedings is essentially in the nature of execution and submitted that there were no merits in the arguments of the petitioner.

Findings of this Court.

6. Vide order dated 25^th July 2024 the point involved in this case was formulated as follows: -

‘Whether the certificate holder can be allowed to function as certificate officer or not?’

The foundational facts of the case.

Case of the petitioner.

7. That the facts leading to the present case as per the records is that Petitioner had purchased a Passenger Bus bearing Registration No. JH- 15D-6131 from Tata Motor Dealer-M/S R.A. Himmatsingka & Co. which was registered before Deoghar District Transport Office in the name of Petitioner on 23.07.2001 on the given addr