BINOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE hearing this writ petition on 5-1-1994, we were struck, nay shocked, to see the manner in which the Sub-divisional Officer, Dhanbad, Sri Krishna Choudhary, (hereinafter referred to as 'the officer') exercising the powers of the Certificate Officer under the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 ('the Act' in short) had passed orders and taken action against the petitioner No. 2 in a proceeding under the said Act. Prima facie being of the opinion that mere setting aside of the impuged order would not suffice the ends of justice and compensate the petitioner for having been put in prison in a most arbitrary manner in gross violation of the provisions of the said Act and all norms of judicial proceedings, we directed the Officer to personally appear in Court and file show cause making it clear that on the next date the Court shall consider the question of awarding of personal compensation against him. The Officer accordingly has appeared and filed a counter-affidavit. As the order dated 11-1-1994 would recall the said counter-affidavit has been treated as show cause. The parties were heard and the matter has been posted for orders today. In order to make home the point it would be appropriate to very briefly refer to the provisions of the Act.

(2.) AS the very preamble would suggest, the underlying object of the Act is to enact law for recovery of 'public demand' within the meaning of the Act. Part II of the Act contains provisions, inter alia, for filing of requisition (where the public demand is payable to person other the Collector), signing of certificates, issue of notice and hearing of objections. Part III of the Act contains provisions laying down a detailed mechanism for recovery of the certificate dues. They are analogous to the provisions of Order XXI, of the Civil Procedure Code and virtually a complete Code by themselves. Having regard to the various provisions contained therein it is obvious that the certificate dues are to recovered by process of attachment and sale of the property of. the certificate-debtor. Before, however, the provisions of Part III can be applied the certificate-debtor has a statutory right of preferring objections under Section 9 and against an adverse order passed thereon to prefer appeal and revision under Sections 60 and 62 of the Act. In fact, as would appear from the provisions of Section 43, the certificate-debtor is further entitled to institute a suit at any time within six months from the date of service of notice under Section 7 or within six months from the date of determination of his liability under Section 9 or, where he has preferred an appeal, within six months from the date of appellate decision.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the Officer, instead of expressing regret and admiting the fault, attempt has been made to justify his action saying that the petitioner owed a sum of Rs. 1,57,869,80 p. out of which only Rs. 84,000 has been paid and the petitioners have to pay the rest.