← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/23275/2013allowed

Mantu Mandal @ Mukund Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-08-24Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23275 of 2013 =========================================================== Mantu Mandal @ Mukund Kumar Son of Late Mahendra Mandal Resident Of Mohalla- Faridpur Naya Tola, Keshopur, P.S- Jamalpur, District- Munger, presently residing at Behind Dariyapur Thana, P.S- Jamalpur, District- Munger .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Certificate Officer, Munger.

3. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Division, Munger

5. The Superintendent of Police, Munger

6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Munger.

7. The Station- In- Charge, Jamalpur, Police Station, Jamalpur, Munger. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For the Respondents : None =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-08-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Demand Notice dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of respondent no. 5, the Certificate Officer, Munger under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (for short, "PDR Act") in Certificate Case No. 05/2013-14.

2. None appears on behalf of any of the parties despite repeated calls.

3. A perusal of paragraph 11 of the writ petition discloses that the validity of the certificate proceeding has been challenged on the ground that a copy of the certificate issued under Section 6 of the PDR Act has not been served upon the petitioner even though it has been mentioned in the impugned notice dated 24.09.2013 that a copy of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.23275 of 2013 dt.24-08-2018 2/2 certificate was being attached.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in paragraph 10 whereof the stand of the petitioner has not been denied but it has merely been stated that the petitioner ought to have filed an objection petition under Section 9 of the PDR Act.

5. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, this Court finds merit in the writ petition. A categorical stand of the petitioner that a copy of the certificate was not enclosed with the notice under Section 7 of the PDR Act has not been denied by the respondents. Such requirement goes to the root of the matter and failure in this regard vitiates the entire certificate proceeding and calls in question the very jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer to proceed without service of notice on the petitioner in the prescribed manner.

6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned demand notice dated 24.09.2013 issued under Section 7 of the PDR Act by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No. 05/2013-14 (Ammexire1) is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Certificate Officer, Munger (respondent no. 2) to issue fresh notice under Section 7 of the PDR Act in accordance with law.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 04.09.2018 Transmission Date N.A.