TRILOKI PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

(2.) Both these writ petitions are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder two notices dtd. 16/3/2013 issued under Sec. 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public demand Recovery Act, 1914 against the writ petitioners initiating certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 4 of 12-13 [W.P.(C) No. 2429 of 2013] and Certificate Case No. 5 of 12-13 [W.P.(C) No. 2439 of 2013] claiming Rs.6,29,904.00 as principal and interest amount as mentioned in view of appendix attached to the notice along with the interest @ 12% from the date of filing of proceeding, have been challenged.

(3.) Ms. Kanchan Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these writ petitions, has submitted that against the notice issued under Sec. 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1914) to which response has also been filed by the Requisitioning Authority wherein at paragraphs 9 to 14 it has been contended that the requisition for recovery of demand, by way of public demand, has been made in great haste. She further submits that from going through the contention raised by the Requisitioning Authority in the response to the objection petition filed under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1914, as has been appended to supplementary affidavits filed on behalf of the writ petitioners dtd. 7/1/2021, it would be evident that the amount which has been requisitioned for recovery under the Act, 1914 is itself being doubted by the Requisitioning Authority. She further submits that although the said response has been filed way back in the year 2013 but it is still not adjudicated upon by the Certificate Officer. She also raised the issue of jurisdiction of the Requisitioning Authority.