SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Ori) 138

High Court Of Orissa
R. N. Misra, C. J. And R. C. Patnaik, J.
MANI KUMARI DEI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
Orl. Jurn. Case 1114  Of  1976
Decided On : 12/05/1981

Advocates Appeared:
B.S.MISHRA, J.K.Rath, L.RATH

A Certificate Officer has a duty to act judiciously and to deal with the grievances of parties appearing before him in a fair and just manner.

Headnote:

CERTIFICATE PROCEEDING - ORISSA PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT, 1962 - SECTION 14 - CERTIFICATE OFFICER'S DUTY TO ACT JUDICIOUSLY - ATTACHMENT OF MOVEABLES - SALE PROCEEDS - FURTHER COERCIVE PROCESS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, who had secured a loan under the Middle Income Group Housing Scheme, challenged the proceedings in a certificate case under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962, alleging that her moveable properties were attached without a finding that the sale proceeds were insufficient to cover the certificate dues.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Certificate Officer had failed to properly investigate the petitioner's grievance that her moveable properties had been attached and kept in the custody of a jimadar, and had proceeded to issue coercive process without determining the validity of the objection.

Issues: 1. Whether the Certificate Officer had acted judiciously in issuing coercive process without investigating the petitioner's grievance regarding the attachment of her moveable properties. 2. Whether the petitioner was liable to pay the certificate dues in full or whether a compromise could be reached.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Certificate Officer had a duty to act judiciously and to deal with the petitioner's grievance in a fair and just manner. 2. The court found that the petitioner's offer to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards the dues within three months was a fair offer, and that the State had accepted this offer.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application and quashed the certificate proceeding, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 4,000/- in the certificate court within three months. In the event of default, the certificate would proceed for Rs. 4,000/- with interest accruing from the date of the judgment.

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner who secured a loan of Rs. 10,000/- under the Middle Income Group Housing Scheme has sought shelter under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings in Certificate Case No. 11 (DIO) of 1970 (Certificate Case No. 69 of 1965-66) and certain orders of attachment and sale of the property in the said certificate proceeding.

( 2 ) A proceeding under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 was ptarted on a requisition sent by the District Loans Officer, Cuttack. The certificate was drawn up and filed on 17-12-1966. Notice was issued to the certificate-debtor. Though there is some controversy regarding service of notice, that question is not relevant, Order dated 14-9-66 shows that in execution of distress warrant, moveables belonging to the petitioner were attached and sale of such articles was directed to be held on 10-10-66. The proceeding thereafter went through a chequered career. It is gathered from order dated 19-7-1972 that the petitioner complained before the Certificate Officer that valuable moveable properties belonging to her were attached in pursuance of the order passed in the Certificate Proceeding and kept in the custody of the jimadar and no warrant of arrest, therefore, should have been issued without a finding that the sale proceeds were not sufficient to cover the certificate dues. She complained, justifiably, that further coercive process could be resorted to if there was demand, still unsatisfied by the proceeds received from the sale. The Certificate Officer was put in a very awkward position because order-sheets subsequent to 26-12-1968 till 11-12-1970 were missing from the record. The Certificate Officer observed as follows:--

"on perusal of the records it is seen that the Certificate Officer in his order dated 14-9-1966 has stated that moveables of the certificate-debtor have been attached and the Certificate Officer has also ordered for sale of the attached property. But the details of the property attached and the person with whom the property was kept in jima is not available in the record. The record is duly page marked and title page filled up before the case record was sent to the higher court to hear the appeal. There is no mention of the missing records in question in the title page. In absence of any record, it cannot be said with certainty that the property of the certificate debtor has actually been attached and kept with jimadar as contended by the learned advocate for the certificate debtor. However, the matter requires investigation. Bench Clerk to find out if the relevant records are available with him. The name of the Bench Clerk who was in charge of the record during the relevant period may be ascertained. . . . . "

The case was adjourned for sometime pending investigation. On 27-4-1974 the case was taken up and the following order was passed :--

"order dated 19-7-1972 Has not been complied with. Bench Clerk to put up the petition stated to have been filed on 19-7-1972 as mentioned in the above order. If the certificate debtor's moveables had been attached, that would certainly have been mentioned in the records. Besides a copy of the attachment order also would have been available with the certificate debtor. In absence of any such record, the contention of the certificate debtor appears to be frivolous. . . . . The Certificate debtor has not taken any steps to pay the certificate dues. Issue notice in Form II (notice for settling a sale proclamation) to the certificate debtor. "

( 3 ) IT is worthwhile to mention here that 27-4-1974 was not the date to which the case was posted. On 6-11-1973 the case was posted to 23-11-1973 and no date was fixed thereafter. The case was taken up 5 months later on 27-4-1974 without notice to the certificate-debtor and behind her back and the order for settling the notice for sale proclamation was passed and notice was issued.

( 4 ) CERTIFICATE proceeding








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top