Jharkhand High Court
Ratna Plastic Jhumri Taliya Through Its ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 1 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: [2003(1)JCR302(JHR)], 2003 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 1156, (2005) 4 JLJR 123 (2003) 1 JCR 302 (JHA), (2003) 1 JCR 302 (JHA)
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Lakshman Uraon
ORDER
1. The appellants being not satisfied with the order dated 11.9.1999, passed by the District Certificate Officer, Kodarma, in Certificate Case No. 4/91-92 preferred the connecting writ petition CWJC No. 2759/2000(R).
2. Their grievance was that the order dated 11.9.1999 was passed by the Certificate Officer without determination of objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 and without determining the liability of the appellants under Section 10 of the said Act. The appellant No. 2 was illegally taken into custody.
3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 13.8.2000 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that after filing of objection under Section 9 of the Act, the appellants did not choose to appear. Subsequently, the appellants had expressed their inability to pay the amount immediately because of their bad financial condition.
4. In the present case the respondents have not disputed that the objection under Section 9 of the Act was preferred by the appellants on 25.2.1994 and it was not decided prior to the order dated 11.9.1999. From the perusal of the photostat copy of the order-sheet it further appears that one or another party was absent on one or another date. On number of days, though the appellants appeared but the case was not taken up because the officer was busy with official work as evident from the order-sheet dated 25.2.1994, 20.6.1994. 15.7.1994 and 29.7.1994.
5. Further from the Order-sheet it is evident that on 29.7.1994 the case was ordered to be listed on 26.8.1994 but curiously it was taken up about 20 days earlier on 6.8.1994. Both the parties having no knowledge of the said date could not appear on 6.8.1994. Next date fixed was 6.10.1994. Thereafter, the case was not taken up for more than one and half years and on 10.4.1996 it was taken up without fixation of such date when the counsel for the other side requested for issuance of warrant of arrest. It is also not clear as to how the certificate case was taken on 10.4.1996, though the said date was not fixed by the certificate officer.
. 6. In the circumstances the case is remitted back with a direction to the certificate officer to dispose of the objection preferred by the appellants under Section 9 of the Act and only thereafter to proceed in the matter in accordance with law after notice to the parties.
7. In view of the fact that the appellant No. 2 was taken into custody in pursuance of an illegal and arbitrary order, we impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the State in favour of the appellant No. 2. It will be open to the State to recover such amount from the officer who passed illegal order on 11.9.1999 in certificate case No. 4/91-92.
8. In view of the aforesaid order and finding we set aside the order dated 30.8.2000 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 2759/2000(R). The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case there shall be no order as to costs.