Raju Kumar Jaiswal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16581 of 2016 ====================================================== Raju Kumar Jaiswal, son of Shri Nand Lal Prasad, resident of village Lngri, P.S. Lauriya, District West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Prasad Patn, R-Block Road No.2, Patna 800001 through its Managing Director

3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Prasad Patn, R-Block Road No.2, Patna 800001

4. The District Certificate Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha For the State : Mr. Bandana Singh, AC to GP-18 For BSFC : Mr. Aitya Prakash Sahay ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 20-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 28.7.2015 passed by the District Certificate Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah in Certificate Case No. 29/2014-15 by which the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act has been rejected on the ground that the same is barred by limitation and further not to take coercive step against the petitioner since body warrant has already been issued against the petitioner without hearing him.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16581 of 2016 (2) dt.20-10-2016 2/3 The Certificate Case No. 29/2014-15 was filed against the petitioner who is proprietor of a Rice Mill, namely, M/s. Jai Mata Di Rice Mill. The notice was served upon the petitioner although it was not personally received by him on 13.11.2014. The petitioner thereafter filed his objection under Section 9 of the Act along with an application for condonation of delay on 16.4.2015. By the impugned order dated 28.7.2015 the objection petition has been rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation and body warrant has been directed to be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection petition could not have been rejected without first deciding the application for condonation of delay which has not been done in the present matter as is evident from the order sheet of the case which has been produced.

Learned counsel for the State is unable to point out anything from the record that the limitation petition filed by the petitioner has been considered.

In the above circumstances, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.7.2015 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Certificate Officer to consider and dispose of the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with

Patna High Court CWJC No.16581 of 2016 (2) dt.20-10-2016 3/3 law.

Needless to say that with the quashing of the impugned order dated 28.7.2015, the body warrant and any other coercive action shall also stand withdrawn and further no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner until the matter is decided as directed above in this order.

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) S.Pandey/- U