ASHOKKUMARSINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ applications have been filed by the petitioners tor issuance of a writ of habeas corpus commanding upon the respondent District Certificate Officer, Patna (in short D C. O ) to release them by quashing their orders of arrest and detention, which have been passed under purported exercise of the powers contained under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only)

(2.) The petitioners in these writ applications are owners of public Carrier Truck bearing registration Nos. BIA 8898 and BIA 9298, respectively. The District Transport Officer sent requisitions dated 28-10-1992 (Annexure 3) to the respondent District Certificate Officer, for filing certificates against the petitioners as per the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Act for realisation of the alleged arrears of tax amounting to Rs. 45,854/63 against each of the petitioners of the period 1-10-89 to 30-9-93. The respondent D. C. O., on receipt of the said regulation registered two certificate cases against each of the petitioners, order-sheet whereof have been filed as Annexure-1 which are identical in both the cases.

(3.) From the order-sheet it appears that after the receipt of the said requisition, the certificate officer by stamped stereo-type order dated 27-1-93 directed for issuance of notice and attachment order issued under Section 7/14 of the Act against the judgment debtors requiring compliance by 27-2-93. But strangely much before the date so fixed, on 5-2-1990 the respondent D. C. O, posted another order direction view of the request made by the District Transport Officer to the said effect. Pursuant to these orders, the petitioners were arrested by the police and produced before the D. C. O. on 3-12-93 and 4-12-93, respectively The D. C, O. thereupon remanded them to civil jail on the ground that they were not ready to immediately pay the alleged down. He ordered for their detention till they pay off the certificated dues. The detentions have been continued by subsequent orders dated 6-12-93 and 20/23-12-93 on the ground that they have failed to pay the amount alleged to be due against them. The petitioners have challenged the validity of these detentions.