Jharkhand High Court
Pulak Mandal vs Certificate Officer on 7 February, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.- 5178 of 2017
Pulak Mandal
Son of late Asit Kumar Mandal, resident of Majgain, PO- Tatanagar,
PS- Parsudih, District- East Singhbhum ...Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1. Certificate Officer, Singhbhum District Central Co-operative
Bank-cum-Managing Director, Managing Director, Singhbhum
District Central Co-operative Bank having its office at Jadugoda,
PO & PS- Jadugoda, Chaibasa
2. Singhbhum District Central Co-operative Bank through its
Branch Manager having its Officer at Jadugoda, PO & PS
Jadugoda, Chaibasa ... Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner :- Mr. Gautam Shrestha, Advocate For the Respondents :- Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Order No.-05 Dated: 07.02.2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.07.2017 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand and Recovery Act, 1914 [in short "the PDR Act, 1914"] has been rejected as well as distress warrant has been issued against the petitioner by the same order.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.1 while passing the order dated 18.07.2017 under Section 10 of the PDR Act, 1914 rejected the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act and also issued the distress warrant against him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.1 has deprived the petitioner from preferring an appeal provided under Section 60 of the PDR Act, 1914 by issuing the order of distress warrant vide order dated 18.07.2017. The respondent no.1 should have, at least, waited for 15 days from passing of the order under Section 10 of the 2 PDR Act, 1914 on 18.07.2017 so that the petitioner could have availed the remedy of appeal provided under Section 60 of the said Act.
4. Mr. Krsihna Murari, leaned counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, raises objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the petitioner should have availed the statutory remedy as provided under Section 60 of the PDR Act, 1914 instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the order dated 18.07.2017. It is further submitted that on perusal of Sections 14 and 15 of the PDR Act, 1914, it would be evident that there is no such restriction in law that the Certificate Officer while passing the order under Section 10 of the Act, cannot simultaneously pass the order issuing distress warrant or any attachment order for realization of the certificate amount.
5. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has efficacious statutory remedy provided under Section 60 of the PDR Act, 1914 against the order dated 18.07.2017, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to avail the remedy as provided under Section 60 of the PDR Act, 1914.
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
7. Pending I.A. No. 9351 of 2017 also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh/N.A.F.R.