DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is proceeded against under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act for alleged mining dues. It is alleged that he illegally operated a brick-kiln and, as such, was liable to pay royalty and other charges. Having not paid the same, the present certificate proceedings were initiated. Petitioner filed his objections but without adjudicating thereupon, the Certificate Court rejected the objection and directed payment of the amount failing which warrants were to be issued. It is now submitted that on 3.1.2008, non-bailable warrant of arrest has been issued pursuant to the order dated 27.9.2007 passed by the Certificate Court. Counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that orders having been passed by the Certificate Court, the same is appealable and, as such, writ petition should not be entertained. It was further submitted on behalf of respondents that theft of minor mineral having been discovered, demands were raised. Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 27.9.2007 would show that notwithstanding petitioner's objection, there was no adjudication whatsoever. It is then submitted that the very assessment which has formed the basis of demand was without jurisdiction. A reference to the impugned order would show that in fact petitioner is correct. Notwithstanding petitioner's objection denying liability, there has been no allegation whatsoever. An appeal is provided against final order passed on petition denying liability. This presupposes an adjudication as to the petition denying liability. In absence of adjudication, nothing remains to be impugned. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order impugned is a final order passed on adjudication as contemplated under the Act which is amenable to appeal. In that view of the matter, the objection of the State that appeal is the proper remedy has to be rejected. Another ground for rejecting the same is that the law contemplates a fair trial followed by a fair appeal. In the present case, there has been no trial and, hence, there cannot be an appeal.

(2.) Thus, in my view, the order impugned cannot be sustained as a final order. Unless a final order is passed and it is put in execution, there is no question of issuance of a warrant of arrest. As has been held repeatedly by this Court in the case of Dasharath Sharma V/s. State of Bihar & Others, 2005 3 PLJR 687 and, thereafter, in the case of Md. Abu Hasnain V/s. State of Bihar & Others, 2007 1 PLJR 797, such process cannot be taken so casually.

(3.) In the result, I am left with no option but to quash the order dated 27.9.2007 and direct the Certificate Court to decide the objections on merit and then proceed in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed accordingly.