LAWS(JHAR)-2013-4-199

SURENDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On April 12, 2013
Surendra Prasad Sinha and Another Appellant
V/S
State Of Jharkhand And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 1871/2013

(2.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for seeking quashing of the letter dated 11th December, 2013 (Annexure -3) issued by the District Co -operative Officer, Giridih by which he had directed the Chairman, Chitardih, PACCS to refund the excess amount of Rs. 7.98 lakhs immediately. According to the petitioners, an inquiry was conducted in the matter of purchase of paddy from different agricultural co -operative societies and a report was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih taking into account the explanation of the petitioners. Thereafter, conflicting letters were issued to the petitioners relating to the refund of excess amount i.e. by first letter, which is impugned herein, a sum of Rs. 7.98 lakhs was demanded and by second letter dated 1st February, 2013, a sum of Rs. 11.36 lakhs was demanded with a threat that if the said amounts are not refunded within I the stipulated time i.e. by 4th of February, 2013, certificate proceedings would be initiated against them.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that once the certificate proceedings have been initiated, petitioners have adequate opportunity to file their objections under Section 9 of the PDR Act, 1914 and the petitioners have also been served with the notices under Section 7 of the said Act. Therefore, the petitioners should be relegated to alternative efficacious remedy available under the Statute. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioners had come before this Court against the demand made by the respondents for refund of the excess amount from the petitioners who are Chairman and Manager of Chitardih PACCS, P.S. Rajdhanwar, district -Giridih. During the pendency of the writ application, certificate proceedings have been initiated and the petitioners have been served with the notices under Section 7 of the Act of 1914. In such circumstances, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Certificate Officer concerned and prefer their objections taking all such points of law as well as facts which are available to them. This Court does not therefore intend to get into the merits of the controversy at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to approach the Certificate Officer, Giridih in the pending Certificate Case Nos. 6/12 -13 and 3/12 -13 which may be considered and decided in accordance with law.