BISHWANATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings of Certificate Case No. 17 of 1986 pending before the respondent no.3, the Sub - Divisional Officer -cum -Certificate Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.

(2.) IT appears that respondent no.4, District Forest Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram published a tender notice for settlement of Tendu Leaf 'sUnits, in which the petitioner also participated. Since the petitioner was the highest bidder, his bid was accepted and an agreement was executed between the parties on 17.11.75. The petitioner could not fulfil the terms of the agreement and, as such, Respondent no.4 issued a fresh tender notice and settled the deal with a third person. Since respondent no.4 got less amount than the amount offered by the petitioners, he sent a requistion to the respondent no.3 under section 5 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') for recovery of the amount as public demand. Respondent no.3 issued a notice under section 7 of the Act to the petitioner. On receipt of the notice petitioner filed objection under section 9 of the Act claiming inter alia that the amount in question could not be recovered as a public demand. Respondent no. 3 however, rejected the objection of the petitioner on 13.6.86. Petitioner filed appeal to the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, who vide his order dated 30.4.90 directed the petitioner to deposit 40% of the amount by 15.5.90, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner is not a public demand within the meaning of the Act and, as such, entire certificate proceedings are without jurisdiction. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the amount in question was a public demand and, therefore, could be legally recovered as such under the provisions of the Act. He further contended that as the petitioner did not deposit 40% of the amount under the orders of respondent no.2, he was not entitled for any relief.