Patna High Court
Naresh kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The writ petition is not to be entertained; the matter must be decided by the authority under Section 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, considering the petitioner’s objection.
Summary
The petitioner, Naresh Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging a show‑cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, and had already lodged an objection under Section 9. The petitioner sought relief through the writ, but the High Court allowed an interlocutory application to amend the prayer portion of the petition. The Court observed that, because the objection under Section 9 was pending, it would not entertain the writ petition on its merits. Instead, the Court directed the respondent authority to decide the matter under Section 10 of the same Act, taking the petitioner’s objection into account. The Court emphasized that the authority must dispose of the demand recovery case within twelve weeks and that the writ petition is thereby disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, is pending.
- Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition or refer the matter to the authority under Section 10 of the Act.
Subjects
- Public Demand Recovery
- Writ Petition
- Maintainability
- Section 9 objection
- Section 10 order
- Civil Writ Jurisdiction
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2461 of 2025
======================================================
Naresh Kumar Son of Gurushay Prasad, Resident of Harishchandranagar,
Village/City- Sipara Shekhpura, P.O. and P.S.- Sipara, District- Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Buxar.
3. The Additional Collector, Buxar.
4. The District Certificate Officer, Buxar.
5. The District Manager, State Food Corporation, Buxar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhash, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (23)with
Ms. Vijaya Laxmi Srivastave, AC to SC 23.
For the BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Utkarsh Utpal, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
12 16-03-2026 Re. I.A. No. 01 of 2026
For the reasons mentioned in the Interlocutory
Application No. 01 of 2026, the same is allowed.
2. Registry is directed to make necessary amendments
in the prayer portion accordingly.
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2461 of 2025
3. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has
already filed his objection under Section 9 to the show cause
notice issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public
Patna High Court CWJC No.2461 of 2025(12) dt.16-03-2026
2/2
Demand Recovery Act, 1914, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the present writ petition. The respondent-authority is
directed to pass necessary orders under Section 10 of the Bihar
and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 duly taking into
consideration the objection filed by the petitioner. It is made
clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of this case and
leaving all the questions to be raised by the petitioner including
the question of maintainability and to be decided by the said
authority. That authority shall endeavour to dispose of the PDR
case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of
12 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
4. With the above directions, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
U
Checking your session…