Patna High Court
Ravindra Sharma @ Ravindra SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The Court held that the authorities must first serve a Section 7 notice, allow the petitioner to file objections under Section 9, and then pass a reasoned order under Section 10 before any coercive steps can be taken.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravindra Sharma, filed a writ petition challenging a warrant of attachment issued on 17‑03‑2025 by the District Certificate Officer, Gaya, for recovery of Rs 64,500, alleging that the authorities had not served the mandatory notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. The petitioner contended that without such notice, and without a final order under Section 10, the demand for payment was illegal and arbitrary. The respondents admitted that the Section 7 notice had not been served and that the petitioner had not filed objections under Section 9. The Court held that procedural compliance with the Act was essential and directed the District Certificate Officer to serve the Section 7 notice within four weeks, after which the petitioner must file objections within four weeks, and the authority must pass a reasoned order under Section 10 within eight weeks, refraining from any coercive action in the meantime. The directions aim to ensure the petitioner’s right to be heard and to expedite the final disposal of the certificate case. The writ petition was consequently disposed of with these procedural directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the authorities were required to serve a notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 before issuing a warrant of attachment.
- Whether the failure to serve such notice and to pass a final order under Section 10 renders the attachment order illegal and void.
Legislation cited
- Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 — s. 10, 7, 9
Subjects
- Public Demand Recovery Act
- Section 7 notice
- Section 9 objections
- Section 10 order
- attachment of property
- writ petition
- procedural fairness
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15826 of 2025
======================================================
Ravindra Sharma @ Ravindra Singh, Son of Late Baliram Sharma, Resident
of Village- Mau, P.S. - Tekari, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Department of Mines
Government of Bihar Patna.
2. The Collector-Cum-District Magistrate Gaya.
3. The District Mining Officer, Gaya.
4. The District Certificate Officer, Gaya.
5. The Circle Officer Tekari, District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel 22.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
“…..for issuance of an
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions for quashing the
order dated 17.03.2025 issued by District
Certificate Officer, Gaya in Certificate
Case No. 109/2009-10 whereby and
whereunder warrant of attachment of
movable property has been issued
against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.
64,500/- and the petitioner has been
directed to deposit the same though he
had already deposited Rs. 27,000/- on
23.09.2010 for sessions 2009-10 through
Patna High Court CWJC No.15826 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
2/4
Draft No. 324079 dated 13.09.2010.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that without
issuing any notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa
Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (herein after referred
to as ‘the Act’), the authority have issued the impugned
notice dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) directing the
petitioner herein to deposit an amount of Rs. 64,500/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that though the petitioner has approached
the authorities number of times and sought the details of the
certificate case filed against him, the authorities till date
have not served the notice under Section 7 of the Act. That
the authorities on the other hand are insisting for payment
of the certificate amount. It is further submitted that without
passing any final orders under Section 10 or serving any
notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public
Demand Recovery Act, the insistence of the authorities to
pay the certificate amount is illegal, bad and arbitrary
exercise of power. Learned counsel, therefore, prays this
Hon’ble Court to direct the authorities to act in accordance
with law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15826 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
3/4
5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent-
State, the factum of serving the notice under Section 7 of
the Act has not been denied, in fact the authority
specifically states the petitioner has not filed his objections
under Section 9 of the Act, however, there is no denial of
the fact that the notice under Section 7 of the Act has not
been served on the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the above made submissions,
this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be
served if the District Certificate Officer, Gaya i.e.
Respondent No. 4 herein is directed to serve the notice
under Section 7 of the Act on the petitioner within a period
of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this
order. On such receipt of the Section 7 notice, the petitioner
shall file his objections under Section 9 of the Act within a
period of four weeks thereof. After receipt of the objections
by the petitioner, the authority shall pass a reasoned order
under Section 10 of the Act duly giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and also taking into account the
objection filed. The authorities shall endeavour to see that
the final orders are passed as expeditiously as possible
Patna High Court CWJC No.15826 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
4/4
preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the
receipt of the objections from the petitioner. Any orders
passed shall be communicated to the party.
7. Till such time the final orders are passed, the
authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps
against the petitioner. It is also made clear that in case, the
petitioner does not cooperate for the disposal of the
certificate case or does not file his objections within the
stipulated time, the authorities are free to recover the
certificate amount from the petitioner.
8. With the above directions, the present writ
petition stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…