YUGAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is being proceeded against in a proceeding under the provisions of Public Demand Recovery Act being Certificate Case No. 221/04 -05 pending before the Collector, Sheikhpura being the certificate officer for realization of mining dues. The petitioner originally challenged that the demand being sought to be recovered is not a public demand but then did not pursue the same. The demand was based on allegation of illegally running a brick -kiln.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner pointed out that without disposing of petitioner 'sobjection, mechanically warrant of arrest has been issued. In support thereof complete order -sheet has been annexed, which clearly shows total non - application of mind by the certificate officer. Law gives 30 days time to a person to file objection. Court cannot reduce the same but has authority to extend. Merely because objection is not filed or objection is filed with delay does not give jurisdiction to the authority to issue bailable/non -bailable warrant. In the present case, it is submitted that on his behalf objection has been filed, which has not been noted in the order -sheet and the matter has not been decided after hearing the parties. In my view, till such a decision is taken, the Certificate Court cannot proceed any further because it is only after objection is Kanti Devi Versus Bank Of Baroda dealt with, the certificate court gets jurisdiction proceed in the matter. Even while proceeding in the matter the casual manner in which warrants are issued is not warranted in law. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with in detail and explained by this Court repeatedly. First this Court in the case of Dasharath Sharma V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., 2005 3 PLJR 687 held the power to arrest for failure of his payment of civil dues to be a draconian law and then in the case of Md. Abu Hasnain V/s. State of Bihar, 2007 1 PLJR 797 this Court held that if the manner in which this power is exercised is said to be authorized by law then such a law would be clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and invalid. Regrettably, wrong practice still continue.

(3.) IN the aforesaid facts, I am left with no option but to set aside the order passed for issuance of distress warrant/ bailable warrant/non -bailable warrant against the petitioner in the said certificate proceeding. The District Magistrate - cum -Certificate Officer, Sheikhpura would now be obliged to take up and decide the petition denying liability and the objection taken therein and pass an. appropriate order in that regard and then act accordingly.