Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Veena Chandra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 April, 2018
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1041 of 2017
Smt. Veena Chandra, wife of Arvind Chandra, resident of Flat No.
99/100, Ramayana Enclave, RIMS By-pass Road, Gitil Kocha, P.O and
P.S.Kokar, District-Ranchi-834001 ..... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.District Certificate Officer, through Smt. Anni Rinku Kujur, District
Collectorate, Ranchi, P.S-Kotwali, P.O. & District-Ranchi, 834001
3.State Bank of India, Hinoo Branch, represented through Branch
Manager, P.O. & P.S.Doranda, District-Ranchi, 834002.
4.Officer Incharge, Doranda Police Station, P.O. & P.S. Doranda,
District-Ranchi, 834002. ..... Respondents
.....
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN .....
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.Rashidi, Advocate
For the Respondents : J.C. to G.P.1
.....
3/17.04.2018 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.02.2016
and 28.11.2016 passed by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No. 160 (SBI) Hinoo/2015-16.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the certificate proceeding was initiated against him for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,61,923/-. He submits that a notice was issued under Section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 on 12.01.2016. He submits that on 23.02.2016 a distress warrant has been issued against this petitioner when the service report of the notice was not received by the Certificate Officer. He submits that on 28.11.2016 again a fresh distress warrant was issued by the respondents. He submits that issuance of distress warrant against the petitioner, without receiving of the service report of notice under Section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 is absolutely bad.
Learned counsel for the State submits that since the petitioner did not appear before the certificate officer, he had no option than to issue the distress warrant.
I heard the parties and I have gone through the records. A notice was issued in the aforesaid certificate case on 12.01.2016. The said notice has been issued in terms of Section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. The order sheet on 12.01.2016 clearly suggest that the record was to be put up after receipt of the service report of notice and no subsequent date was fixed. The record was put up on 23.03.2016. The order dated 23.03.2016 clearly suggest that the service report of notice issued under section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, has not yet been received by the Certificate Officer. Thereafter, distress warrant was issued against the petitioner. Similarly again a distress warrant issued on 28.11.2016 without there being any service report on record.
Thus, from the record, I find that since the Certificate Officer had already directed to place the record only after receipt of the service report, the same record could not have been placed before him on 23.03.2016. It should have been placed only after receipt of the service report.
Further from the order dated 23.03.2016 it is clear that without receipt of the service report a distress warrant has been issued. The Certificate Officer could not have issued distress warrant against the petitioner when the service report was not placed before him. Thus, the order dated 23.03.2016 and subsequent order dated 28.11.2016 by which distress warrant has been issued against the petitioner is absolutely bad. I therefore, set aside the order dated 23.03.2016 and 28.11.2016 by which the distress warrant was issued against the petitioner.
Since the petitioner has appeared before this Court, I direct the petitioner to appear before the Certificate officer in case no. 160(SBI) Hinoo/2015-16 within six weeks from today with an objection under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. If he file an objection within the aforesaid time frame the Certificate officer will determine the amount and will pass a final order as per the law. It is made clear, if the petitioner do not appear within six weeks from today this order will not be given effect too and distress warrant will be executed against the petitioner.
With the aforesaid direction this writ application stands disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.) Amar/cp2