Jailendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18519 of 2015 ====================================================== Jailendra Kumar son of Late Bateshwar Prasad, resident of Village - Moudihan, Post Office - Baraon Kala, Police Station - Darihat, District - Rohtas at Sasaram, the Proprietor of M/s Siddhi Vinayak Mini Rice Mill Akorhi Gola.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Managing Director, Bihar Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Patna.

3. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Rohtas.

4. The District Magistrate, Rohtas.

5. The Certificate Officer Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondents :

Mr. raghwendra Kumar, SC 22 For the BSFC :

Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 21-12-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Certificate Case No. 08 of 2015-16 pending before Certificate Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram without ascertaining the disputed amount in arbitration; and for connected reliefs.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to question the validity of certificate proceedings in Certificate Case No. 08 of 2015-16 mainly on the ground that in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement, the petitioner had filed a petition before the District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Rohtas for referring the matter to the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram for arbitration but nothing has been done in this behalf.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18519 of 2015 dt.21-12-2018 2/3

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation with a categorical denial in paragraph 7 thereof stating that the petitioner has not filed any application for arbitration before the District Manager nor the District Magistrate, Rohtas and nothing is pending in this regard. It is further stated that the petitioner has not filed any objection petition under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (for short, "PDR Act")

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the stand of the petitioner that an application has been filed before the respondent no. 3 for arbitration in terms of the agreement, has been categorically denied by the respondent-BSFC. No rejoinder thereto has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. The stand of the respondent-BSFC that the petitioner has also not filed any objection petition under Section 9 of the PDR Act has also not been disputed.

5. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be met if the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Certificate Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram (respondent no. 5) with an objection petition under Section 9 of the PDR Act. If such an objection petition is filed within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law and after grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18519 of 2015 dt.21-12-2018 3/3

6. It is made clear that in such event, the Certificate Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram shall refrain from taking coercive steps for recovery of the outstanding dues until disposal of the said objection petition. (Vikash Jain, J) BT/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 22.12.2018 Transmission Date N.A.