RAMJI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Singh, counsel representing the Begusarai Municipality. Shambhu Singh Versus State Of Bihar

(2.) THE petitioner is the President of the Bihar State Ex -services League, District Branch, Begusarai and in that capacity he is facing a proceeding under the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act in Certifcate Case No. 35 of 2001 -02 pending before the District Certificate Officer, Begusarai. The Certificate case has been instituted on the basis of a requisition for a sum of Rs. 14,60,270.85 paise issued by the Begusarai Municipality for recovery of its dues under the agreement for settlement of Begusarai Municipal Bus stand. It appears that the District Branch of the League took settlement of the Begusarai Bus Stand for collection of tolls for a number of years but it failed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs and odd for the settlement year 1999 -2000 and a further sum of Rs. 4 lacs and odd for the settlement year 2000 -2001 (adding up to a total sum of Rs 14,60,270.85 paise). It is for the recovery of this money that the certificate case is instituted at the instance of the municipality. The objections filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Act stand rejected by the Certificate Officer by orders, dated 30.8.2002 and 8.10.2002 and though the petitioner purported to file an appeal against the orders passed by the Certificate Officer, it remains unentertained and dormant for want of deposit of 40% of the requisition amount. In these circumstances, the petitioner has come to this court challenging the institution of the Certificate case and the orders passed in the case.

(3.) HAVING regard to the present position of the league, as stated by the petitioner himself, I find the submission completely misconceived. On the petitioner 'sown showing (see paragraph 20 of the writ petition) all the office bearers of the District branch of the League had tendered resignation and the petitioner had assumed the office of the President for carrying on the work of the League. It further appears that he personally executed the agreement with the Begusarai Municipality, describing himself self as the President of the District League. It is evident that in the execution of the agreement hardly any provisions of the bye - laws of the Society were followed inasmuch as there is no evidence of any sanction of the agreement by the Executive Committee or its approval by the Managing Committee of the Society; presumably, these Committees are no longer in existence and the district branch of the league is being run by the petitioner alone as its President. For all these reasons, there appears to be hardly any scope for the petitioner to hide behind the technical pleas raised on the basis of the provisions of the Society 'sbye -laws.