Bailable warrant quashed for not following the section 9 of public demands recovery act – Jharkhand high court
Bailable warrant quashed for not following the section 9 of public demands recovery act – Jharkhand high court A writ petition was filed under article 226 of the constitution of India demanding the quashing of entire proceedings of Certificate Case No. 362 of 2000 was found under the law and the quashing of a bailable warrant issued against the petitioner was quashed by the single judge bench of  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD in the case of Wrecko Glass Industries versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors. W.P. (C) No. 1948 of 2013. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the bailable warrant/distress warrant was issued by the Certificate Officer even though objection under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 was filed but not decided. the court after hearing the counsel directed the State counsel to come up with the entire record about Certificate Case No. 362 of 2000. The learned counsel for the respondents on presenting the original record submits that objection filed by the petitioner as under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 has not yet been decided. The certificate officer submitted that issuance of distress warrant/bailable warrant without deciding the objection made under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 cannot be said to be a correct proceeding. The court after hearing both sides concluded that since the writ petitioner had filed objection as under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, but, the same has not been decided as yet, as per the record of Certificate Case No. 362 of 2000. As such the issuance of distress warrant/bailable warrant cannot be said to be justified do not align with the statutory provision for the reason that when a notice is being issued in exercise of the power conferred under Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, which is for the purpose to provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed certificate debtor. Therefore, the issuance of a distress warrant/bailable warrant vide order dated 12.12.2012 cannot be said to be under the law. And was quashed and set aside and directed the certificate officer to decide the objection filed by the writ petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, in accordance with the law, preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. and with these directions, the writ petition was disposed .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.No. 19413 Wrecko Glass Industries represented through its proprietor George Wrecko son of Late John Wrecko resident of Gaushala Road Jhumri Telaiya P.O. Jhumri Telaiya P.S. Telaiya Dist. Koderma. … … Petitioner 1.State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Jharkhand Project Building P.O. Dhurwa P.S. Dhurwa 2.District Certificate Officer Koderma P.O. & P.S. Koderma District Koderma. 3.Certificate Officer cum Sub Divisional Officer Koderma P.O. & P.S. Koderma District Koderma. 4.Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Koderma P.O. P.S. Koderma District Koderma. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD For the Petitioner For the Respondents Mr. Deepak Kumar Advocate Mr. Rahul Saboo S.C. I Order No. 07 Dated 6th January 2022 The matter has been heard through video 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No. 362 of 2000 instituted against the petitioner on the requisition of Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Koderma and pending in the Court of Certificate Officer cum Sub Divisional Officer Koderma and for quashing of order dated 12.12.2012 passed by Certificate Officer cum Sub Divisional Officer Koderma by which the bailable warrant was issued against the writ petitioner. 3. Mr. Deepak Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted by taking the ground that bailable warrant distress warrant was issued by the Certificate Officer even though objection under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act 1914 was filed but the same has not yet been decided. 4. This Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties on the last occasion directed the State counsel to come up with the entire record pertaining to Certificate Case No. 362 of 2000 as also directed for personal appearance of Certificate Officer on the next date of 5. In pursuance to the aforesaid order today Mr. Moquim Ahmad at present discharging duty as Certificate Officer Koderma has appeared through on line mode along with original record of Certificate Case No. 3600. 6. Mr. Rahul Saboo learned S.C. I appearing for the respondents State on perusal of original record of Certificate Case No. 362 of 2000 has submitted that objection filed by the petitioner as under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act 1914 has not yet been decided. 7. The Certificate Officer upon the query put forth by this Court has submitted that issuance of distress warrant bailable warrant without deciding the objection made under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act 1914 cannot be said to be a correct proceeding. 8. This Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties is of the view that since the writ petitioner had filed objection as under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act 1914 but the same has not been decided as yet as per the record of Certificate Case No. 362 of 2000. As such the issuance of distress warrant bailable warrant cannot be said to be justified being not in consonance with the statutory provision for the reason that when a notice is being issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act 1914 which is for the purpose to provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed certificate debtor. The proposed certificate debtor is required to file objection as under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act 1914 for its consideration in accordance with law it is only after disposal of the aforesaid objection the subsequent action is to be taken if required by the Certificate Officer. 9. Admittedly in the instant case the objection filed by the petitioner as under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act 1914 has not yet been decided. Therefore the issuance of distress warrant bailable warrant vide order dated 12.12.2012 cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Accordingly the same is hereby quashed and set In consequence thereof the Certificate Officer concerned is directed to decide the objection filed by the writ petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act 1914 in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt production of copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of. In consequence of the disposal of the writ petition pending Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 1589 of 2019 stands disposed of. Let original record of Certificate Case No. 362 of 2000 be handed over to the Certificate Officer. Personal appearance of Certificate Officer dispensed with. Alankar Sujit Narayan Prasad J.) 