BINAY KUMAR MODI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It has been argued that there was no proper adjudication of the petitioner's objection as required by Section 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. It has also been argued that adjudication contemplated by Section 10 of the Act would suggest a quasi- judicial order of which reasons are integral part as required by the rule of natural justice.

(2.) The petitioner's revision under Section 62 of the Act is pending before the Collector, Dumka. In the meantime, by the impugned order, the Certificate Officer has issued a warrant against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to obtain interim stay in the revision. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that as a pre-condition to the decision of the revision, the first proviso to Section 62 of the Act requires deposit of 40% of the certificate dues.

(3.) Considering all the submissions and legal provisions, it is directed that if the petitioner deposits 40% of the certificate dues with the respondent Bank and submits proof of such deposit before the Collector, Dumka where the revision is pending, the Collector, Dumka shall stay the warrant issued by the Certificate Officer during the pendency of the revision before him, and will try to decide the revision finally as expeditiously as possible. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to make statutory deposit of 40% of certificate dues, the Collector, Dumka will not be obliged to pass any order.