Jharkhand High Court
General Manager vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 17 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:28593-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.4839 of 2025
General Manager, Rajmahal Area of M/s Eastern Coalfields
Limited, having its Office at Lalpania, P.O. and P.S. - Lalpania,
District - Godda through its Area General Manager Shri
Arupananda Nayak, aged about 57 years, S/o Shri Bhimsen Nayak,
R/o Q.No. - D-01, Urjanagar, P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, District-
Godda, PIN-814154 ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of
Mines and Geology, Nepal House, PO & PS-Doranda, District-
Ranchi.
2. Certificate Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer. Mahagama,
P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, District Godda.
3. The Certificate Officer, Mining-cum-Deputy Director, Mines,
Santhal Pargana Circle, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. - Dumka, District -
Dumka.
4. District Mining Officer, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District Godda.
... Respondents
----------
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Pratyush, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG
-----
Order No.03/Dated 17.09.2025
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking herein for the following reliefs:-
(i) To Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 08.07.2025 passed in Certificate Case No. 02/2023-24 (Annexure-6) passed by the 1 2025:JHHC:28593-DB Respondent No. 3 - the Certificate Officer, Mining cum Deputy Director, Mines, Santhal Pargana Circle, Dumka, the transferee Court whereby the said Respondent in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice has been pleased to hold that the Petitioner has failed to pay the Certificate Amount and accordingly passed orders for recovery of the Certificate Amount.
(ii) For Quashing the Notice bearing Memo No. 01 dated 08.07.2025 in Certificate Case No. 02/2023-24 (Annexure- 5) by the Respondent No. 3 whereby the Petitioner has been called upon to deposit the Certificate Amount through Treasury Challan failing which Warrant of Attachment/Arrest would be issued for realization of Rs. 2,96,73,07,904.00.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ for quashing the entire Certificate Proceedings of Certificate Case No. 02/2023-24 now pending before the Respondent No. 3 as the Certificate Amount sought to be recovered is not a Public Demand as defined in Section 3(6) of the Bihar and Orissa, Public Demand Recovery Act, 1940.
2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that a straightaway distress warrant has been issued without providing an opportunity to file objection as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1914").
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that by denying the said opportunity, the vital 2 2025:JHHC:28593-DB right has been snatched away and, as such, the distress warrant may be directed to be recalled by restoring the case at the stage of filing of objection in terms of the provision of Section 9 of the Act, 1914.
4. Mr. Shray Mishra, learned AC to AG, on such admitted fact, submits that what has been contended by Mr. Mehta, is based upon the copy of the order-sheet, as has been appended in the writ petition.
5. The learned State Counsel has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of by restoring the case to the stage of Section 9 of the Act, 1914 by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file objection as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 with a specific direction to the Certificate Officer to consider the said objection within specific period.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Before appreciating the argument, it needs to refer herein that this Court while passing the ad-interim order on 02.09.2025 has taken note of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, that the opportunity which was to be availed by the petitioner by filing objection as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 has not been provided and straightaway, that is, after issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914, the distress warrant has been issued.
8. For ready reference, the order dated 02.09.2025, is being referred herein: -
1. Learned State Counsel has sought for two weeks' time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit.
2. Time, as has been sought for, is allowed.
3. List this matter under the heading for "fresh filing" on 17.09.2025 so that on or before the next date of hearing, counter affidavit be filed.3
2025:JHHC:28593-DB Ad-interim
4. Although, separate interlocutory application has not been filed seeking ad-interim stay but in a prayer portion, a relief has been sought for to pass ad-interim order during the pendency of the writ petition.
5. Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the same, has submitted that in the facts and circumstances that notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 has been issued on 16.03.2024. But no stipulation of time for filing objection, as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, the matter remained pending and it is only on 12.06.2025, the matter was transferred to the respondent no.3-Certificate Officer, Mining- cum Deputy Director, Mines and perhaps, he has not gone into the earlier order for issuance of notice under Section 7, thereby, no stipulation of time has again been made requiring to file objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 and straightaway, vide order dated 08.07.2025, distress warrant has been issued.
6. It has been contended that the vital right to file an objection as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 has been denied to the writ petitioner and thereby, the right of the petitioner has seriously been prejudiced.
7. It has also been submitted that on 01.09.2025, the date was fixed for making payment and if the petitioner's interest will not be protected, in such circumstances, on failure on the part of the quasi-judicial functionary, the Certificate Officer requiring not giving an opportunity to file objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, therefore, prayer for ad-interim order has been made.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order sheets, i.e., order dated 16.03.2024 wherefrom it is evident that notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 was issued by the Certificate Officer. However, no specific time requiring to file objection has been referred therein.
9. The matter thereafter was posted before the Certificate Officer on being transferred, he again has not stipulated any time and straightaway has issued the order on 08.07.2025 asking the writ petitioner to deposit the requisitioned amount.
10. The Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 certainly is a measure for recovery of the amount if declared to be public demand under Section 3 of the Act, 1914 but before doing that, the opportunity is to be given to the said certificate debtor as required to be given under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 before taking any coercive measure for the purpose of securing the amount which has been requisitioned by the Requisitioning Officer to the Certificate Officer.
11. The same prima-facie appears to be lacking in the instant case, hence, the petitioner is having the prima-facie case and since, the demand has been made, failing which, the distress warrant will be issued.
42025:JHHC:28593-DB
12. All the requirements for passing ad-interim stay, i.e., primafacie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, are available and if the petitioner will not be protected then it will lead to irreparable loss.
13. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the order dated 08.07.2025, as also, the distress warrant, are being kept in abeyance, till the next date of hearing."
9. The fact about issuance of the distress warrant, without having an opportunity to file objection as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 has not been disputed by the learned State counsel, rather, in all Bonafide, it has been submitted that the certificate proceeding may be restored at the stage of filing of the objection as required to be filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, so that the petitioner may have the opportunity to put defence for its consideration by the Certificate Officer.
10. This Court on consideration of such submission made on behalf of the learned State counsel, is of the view that the order dated 08.07.2025 passed in Certificate Case No. 02 of 2023/2024 requires interference.
11. Accordingly, the order dated 08.07.2025 passed in Certificate Case No. 02 of 2023/2024 is hereby, quashed and set aside.
12. The petitioner is at liberty to make an objection within a period of 30 days from today, as stipulated under Section 9 of the Act, 1914.
13. The Certificate Officer is directed to pass order, in accordance with law.
14. It has been submitted that the other identical matters have also been remitted before the Certificate Officer in terms of the direction passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 255 of 2001 and analogous cases.
15. Let this case be also decided alongwith those cases.
16. This writ petition, accordingly is being disposed of in terms of the direction passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 255 of 2001 5 2025:JHHC:28593-DB and analogous cases within the time as stipulated vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in L.P.A. No. 255 of 2001 and analogous cases, wherein three months' time have been given for passing the order, in accordance with law.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Dated: 17th September, 2025 Rajnish/R.K. 6