Birendra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3522 of 2017 =========================================================== Birendra Prasad, Son of Shri Sharda Prasad, resident of Village- Gamhariya Kala, P.S.- Darpa, District- East Champaran, Proprietor of M/s Ma Durga Rice Mill, Adapur, East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, New Secretariat, Patna.

2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporations Limited, Patna.

3. The District Manager, State Food Corporation Limited, East Champaran.

4. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari.

5. The Certificate Officer, East Champaran at Motihari. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Adv. Mr. K.M. Mishra, Adv.

For the State : Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5 For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.9.2016 passed in Certificate Case No. 37/2014-15, whereby and whereunder, the authority, under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner had moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12299 of 2015, there the petitioner had challenged the order of distress warrant issued against he petitioner for recovery of Rs. 77,59,525.93/- in the aforesaid certificate case, the Court

Patna High Court CWJC No.3522 of 2017 dt.01-08-2017 remanded back the matter and directed the Certificate Officer, East Champaran, Motihari to pass a fresh order and dispose of the same. In pursuance thereof, the authority has passed the reasoned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authority has not dealt with the issue of non-deposit of proper court fee and neither requisition nor the certificate was proper, is per-se illegal and, as such, the entire certificate proceeding vitiates. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also disputed the amount. These are the mixed questions of facts and law. The petitioner may raise all the points before the appellate authority.

If the petitioner files an appeal as per Section 60 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act within a period of three weeks from today along with the stay petition, till the disposal of the stay petition, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. If the petitioner does not file an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of three weeks from today as aforesaid, the authority will be at liberty to realize the amount from the petitioner. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Rishi/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 04.08.