Patna High CourtCWJC/16511/2012allowed

Janak Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-08-19Mr. Justice Vikash Jain3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16511 of 2012 =========================================================== Janak Ram, Son of Ganga Ram, Resident of Village - Siropatti, P.S. Khanpur, District Samastipur .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Samastipur

3. The District Certificate Officer, Samastipur

4. The Union Bank of India, Gola Road, Branch Samastipur .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate For Respondent-bank : Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh Mr. Anup Kr. Sinha, Advocates For the State : None =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-bank.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.06.2012 passed in Certificate Case No. 07 of 2011-12 by the District Certificate Officer, Samastipur by which an order of attachment of property of the petitioner was issued; and for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 to hear the objection petition filed under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (for short, "PDR Act").

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 12.06.2012 contains a gross error of fact in

Patna High Court CWJC No.16511 of 2012 dt.19-08-2016 2/3 recording that the petitioner had not filed any objection petition. Such observation stands refuted from the certified copy of the objection petition annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and which has not been controverted by the respondents.

4. None appears on behalf of the respondent-State nor has any counter affidavit been filed on its behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank appears and has been heard.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the petitioner and on careful consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds merit in the writ petition. A supplementary affidavit enclosing a certified copy of the objection petition under Section 9 of the PDR Act has been filed after serving copies thereof on the respondent-State and the respondent-bank. The specific stand of the petitioner in this regard has not been controverted by any of the respondents.

7. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.06.2012 passed in Certificate Case No. 07 of 2011-12 is accordingly quashed and the District Certificate Officer, Samastipur (respondent no. 3) is directed to consider the objection petition filed under Section 9 of the PDR Act, if still pending, and dispose of the same in accordance with law after grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

8. It is made clear that until disposal of such objection

Patna High Court CWJC No.16511 of 2012 dt.19-08-2016 3/3 petition, the District Certificate Officer, Samastipur shall not resort to any coercive action for recovery of the dues against the petitioner in Certificate Case No. 07 of 2011-20112.

9. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observation and directions.

(Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 23.08.2016 Transmission Date N/A