ORDER

Date : 19-08-2020 Heard Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the review petitioner.

2. This application for review have been filed against the order dated 01.04.2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) 2166/2019.

3. It is observed that a certified proceeding (Bakijai Certificate) was instituted for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- passed on 06.01.2000 by the learned MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati.

4. It is projected that after an award was passed, the review petitioner entered into an unregistered deed of agreement that the claimant on 05.01.2004 and it is projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter arising out of the award was compromised and settled. It is submitted that as the Certificate proceeding was continuing despite settlement/ compromise, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition i.e. WP(C) 2166/2019. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/-. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed the present review application to challenge only the cost imposed vide the said order dated 01.04.2019 passed in WP(C) 2166/2019. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer in this review application is limited to waiver of cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed by this Court.

5. The petitioner has not annexed any document to show that he has availed statutory remedy as provided under section 9 of the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913 (BPDR Act for short) to deny liability within the period of limitation as prescribed under Sec.9(1) of BPDR Act. The petitioner has also not annexed any document to show that he has availed any other statutory remedies as provided under section 51, section 34, section 53 and section 54 of the said BPDR Act. Power to arrest and detain is provided for under Section 29 thereof. The petitioner has also not annexed any document to show that the certificate holder had applied for cancellation of certificates as provided for under Section 44 of BPDR Act. It may be pertinent to mention herein that as per Section 56 of BPDR Act, Limitation Act, 1908 applies to proceedings under the said Act, which is of great significance because in the present in hand, the petitioner has not availed any statutory remedy as provided under BPDR Act. Moreover, in Section 57 of BPDR Act, it is provided that a Certificate Officer shall be deemed to be a Court and any proceeding before him shall be deemed to be a civil proceeding within the meaning of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. It may also be pertinent to mention herein that as per section 56(2) of BPDR Act, a certificate filed thereunder is as if it is a decree of a Civil Court. Therefore, if a decree has been satisfied out of Court, the provisions of Order XXI Rule 2 CPC would be applicable in spirit, meaning thereby that the satisfaction of MACT award must be recorded in the Certificate Proceeding. Therefore, viewed from all these angles, the petitioner has not been able to show any infirmity in respect of the impugned order sought to be reviewed, thereby dismissing the writ petition with cost. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned herein before, the present review application is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.

6. Considered the oral submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is suffering stressed financial condition. In this case, the MAC award has remained not-executed or satisfied for about 20 years now, the imposition of cost is fully justified. Yet considering the projection of financial distress suffered by the petitioner, the Court is inclined to conditionally reduce the cost imposed from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. The order dated 01.04.2019 passed in WP(C) 2166/2019 stands modified to limited extent that the petitioner shall now deposit the cost of Rs.25,000/-, subject to its deposit within a period of 2(two) months from today. It is made clear that if the modified cost is not deposited within 19.10.2020, this