In the High Court of Judicature at Patna CWJC No. 18076 of 2019 Shambhu Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. Appearance: Fo
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 In the High Court of Judicature at Patna CWJC No. 18076 of 2019 Shambhu Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, SC 4 For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh Oral Order 24.4.2020 Heard through video conferencing. The writ petitioner being the proprietor of M/s Harimurat Rice Mill, Bihta, has preferred the present writ application for quashing the Memo No.49 dated 6.7.2019 as contained in Annexure 12 issued by the Certificate Officer, Danapur in Case No. 13/2014-15 whereby a notice has been issued under Rule 53 of the Public Demands Recovery Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to the effect that if the certificate amount of Rs.2,39,313/- is not deposited by the petitioner, the Certificate Officer will issue attachment order of his property and will also put the land and building of the petitioner on auction. The relief prayed for in paragraph 1 of the writ application reads as follows: “(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of memo No.49 dated 6.7.2019 issued by the Certificate, Danapur in Case No. 13/2014-15 whereby a notice has been issued under Section -53 of the PDR Act that if the amount of Rs.2,39,313.00 is not deposited by the 2 petitioner, he will issue attachment order of his property and also put the property on auction. (ii) For holding that without deciding the objection filed by the petitioner under section-9 of the PDR Act, the Certificate Officer cannot proceed to execute the certificate as this would be against section -14 of the PDR Act. (iii) For holding that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.3,17,875.00 against the total demand of Rs.5,57,188.00 and he has offered the BSFC and also in his petition under section-9 of the PDR Acft that the security deposit made by him to the tune of Rs. Fifty thousand for the period of 2011- 12 is still lying with the BSFC and his milling, handling and transportation bill for the period of 2012-13 to the tune of Rs.1,14,000.00 (a total of both comes to Rs.1,64,000.00) may be adjusted against the demand made against the petitioner and he may be communicated with the balance amount, which would be about Rs.75,000.00 only, which the petitioner is ready to pay within a fixed time. (iv) For necessary direction upon the BSFC to adjust the security deposit of Rs. Fifty thousand made by the petitioner for the period 2011-12 and the milling, handling and transportation bills submitted by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,14,000.00 ( a total of both comes to 3 Rs.1,64000.00) against the demand of Rs.2,39,313.00 and communicate the balance amount to the petitioner, which the petitioner is ready to deposit within a fixed time. (v) For necessary direction upon the BSFC to release the property pledged by the petitioner at the time of execution of agreement dated 05-03-2013 inasmuch as the value of the property pledged by the petitioner is Rs.22,31,000.00, which has been kept by the BSFC. (vi) For staying the further proceeding of the Certificate No.13/2014-15 pending before the Certificate Officer, Danapur and restraining the Certificate Officer from proceeding with attachment of property of the petitioner. (vii) For any other direction, which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” I.A. No. 1 of 2020 The above mentioned I.A. has been preferred with modified prayer for quashing the order dated 6.3.2020 passed by the Sub- divisional Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Danapur in Certificate Case No. 13 of 2014-15 as contained in Annexure 14, whereby the petitioner’s objection under Section 9 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter called the Act) has been rejected with regard to adjustment of the amount of Rs.1,64000/- which 4 the petitioner has claimed from the Bihar State Food Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the BSFC) with regard to milling, handling and transportation and it has been directed for issuance of a distress warrant. Further prayer has been made for quashing the Memo No. 601 dated 7.3.2020 as contained in Annexure 15 whereby the Certificate Officer-cum-SDO, Danapur has issued warrant for attachment of movable and immovable property of the petitioner. The factual matrix of the case, as gets reflected from the materials on record, is that the proprietor of M/s Harimurat Rice Mill, Bihta, on 06.02.2012, entered into an agreement with the BSFC for supply of processed rice in lieu of the paddy supplied by BSFC in the agricultural session 2011-12. In pursuance to the said agreement, the petitioner deposited Rs.50000/- as security deposit but the said amount has not been refunded. Subsequently, on 5.3.2013, second agreement in the agricultural session 2012-13 was entered into and accordingly, 2000 quintals of paddy was supplied to the petitioner who was supposed to supply 67% processed rice, total amounting to 1340 quintals processed rice. The petitioner supplied 1080 quintals of processed rice to BSFC but 260 quintals of rice was not supplied though it is claimed by the petitioner that the same was not accepted by the FCI since it was not as per specification. On 16.8.2014, the District Manager, BSFC, Patna sent requisition to the Certificate Officer, Danapur for recovery of Rs.5,56,688, from the petitioner, whereupon Certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 13 of 2014-15 was initiated by Certificate Officer-cum-SDO, Danapur. The petitioner, on 9.2.2015, filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act claiming Rs.1,64,000/- from the 5 BSFC with regard to milling of paddy, transportation, handling and Rupees Fifty Thousand as security deposit with regard to agreement of agricultural session 2011-12, which has not been refunded to the petitioner. The petitioner further disputed the total amount claimed by the BSFC. The Certificate Officer, Danapur vide order dated 12.1.2015 issued notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Sub-divisional Officer- cum-Certificate Officer, Danapur, vide Memo No. 19 dated 2.3.2015, as contained in Annexure 6 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.3,17,875/- and also directed the BSFC to file response to the objection of the petitioner but the BSFC did not file the same. However, the Certificate Officer, Danapur, vide Memo No. 03 dated 2.2.2016 as contained in Annexure 9, directed the petitioner to further deposit Rs.75,313/-. The petitioner admitted the said amount to be due but he failed to deposit the same, however, he is now ready to deposit the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all of a sudden, vide order dated 6.3.2020 passed in Certificate Case No. 13 of 2014-15, the Certificate Officer, Danapur rejected the objection petition of the petitioner on the ground that the BSFC intimated the Certificate Officer that they will decide the adjustment of the amount claimed by the petitioner after deposit of the entire due amount and directed for issuance of distress warrant and consequently, vide Memo No. 601 dated 7.3.2020 the Certificate Officer, Danapur further directed for issuance of attachment of movable and immovable property of the petitioner. Hence, the objection of the petitioner has not been decided as per the parameters laid down in Section 10 of the Act and as such, the Certificate Officer ought not to have passed the final order without 6 deciding the objection petition as mandated under Section 14 of the Act. It is further submitted that petitioner was not aware about the date fixed in the certificate proceeding on 6th or 7th March, 2020, as a result he could not appear and hence the order was passed without hearing him behind his back. The writ application has been preferred by the petitioner on 8.8.2019 and I.A. to the same being filed on 21.4.2020 but till date no counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, learned counsel for the State submits that the amount of paddy supplied by the BSFC is not in dispute and this is also not in dispute that the petitioner failed to supply 260 quintals of processed rice and hence the orders passed by the Certificate Officer, Danapur do not require any interference. Moreover, the petitioner admits the still due amount to the tune of Rs.75,313/-, hence he should deposit the same. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the BSFC submits that the petitioner has never submitted bill with regard to adjustment of amount of milling of paddy, transportation and handling etc. as a result, the adjustment of the same has not been made. Hence, the BSFC intimated the Certificate Officer that the adjustment of the amount claimed by the petitioner will be considered after deposit of certificate amount. There is no interim order in the writ application, hence, in that background the orders of distress warrant and attachment of property of the petitioner have been passed. However, he has no objection if the Certificate Officer, Danapur is directed to pass 7 appropriate order deciding the objection of the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act.