Patna High Court
Poonam AgrawalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The certificate proceeding initiated against the deceased Managing Director was void, and the attachment warrant and related actions against the legal heirs were ultra vires and therefore quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the late Managing Director Pradeep Agrawal, challenged a letter and attachment warrant issued by the Certificate Officer for recovery of certificate dues against Simran Metals Ltd. They argued that the warrant, served in 2024, was issued against a deceased person and therefore void, and that the certificate proceeding should not continue against them without a fresh certificate under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. The State contended that the petitioners could object under Section 9 of the Act and that the limitation period did not apply. The Court examined prior decisions holding that proceedings against a dead debtor are null and that a fresh certificate must be made against legal representatives. Relying on those precedents, the Court held that the certificate proceeding and the attachment warrant were ultra vires. Consequently, the impugned letter and the certificate proceedings were quashed, while leaving open the State's right to recover dues from the company itself.
Issues considered
- Whether a certificate proceeding and attachment warrant issued against a deceased debtor is void ab initio.
- Whether the Certificate Officer can continue recovery against the legal heirs without a fresh certificate under the PDR Act.
- Whether the limitation period bars the State's recovery action.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a hearing before attachment of their personal assets.
- Whether the State may recover the dues solely from the assets of Simran Metals Ltd.
Legislation cited
- Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 — s. 10, 5, 52, 9
Subjects
- certificate proceeding
- attachment warrant
- legal heirs
- death of debtor
- public demand recovery act
- jurisdiction
- limitation period
- writ of certiorari
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.519 of 2025
======================================================
1. Poonam Agrawal, wife of Late Pradeep Agrawal, resident of Flat Number N-
801, Uday Giri Apartment, Budh Marg, Patna-800001, presently resident of
House Number 244, Road No. 9, Rajendra Nagar, P.O. and P.S.-Kadam
Kuan, Patna.
2. Simran Agrawal, son of Late Pradeep Agrawal, R/o Flat No. N/801, Uday
Giri Apartment, Budh Marg, Patna-1, presently resident of H. No. 244, Road
No. 9, Rajendra Nagar, P.O. and P.S.-Kadam Kuan, Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner,
Department of Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Finance, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna.
4. The Certificate Officer cum Officer in Charge, Disaster Management, Patna.
5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
6. The Officer in Charge Kadam Kuan Police Station, Patna.
7. The South Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited through its
Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Chandra Agrawal, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (17)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 01-07-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing of the
letter bearing reference number 141/aa.pra.
Dated 17.07.2019 issued by the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.519 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
2/10
4 served upon the petitioner for the first
time by local police on 28.12.2024 whereby
the police authorities have been requested to
execute the process issued for attachment of
property in connection with recovery of
certificate amount in certificate case
number 10/2013-14/181/2001-02 against
Simran Metals Ltd and the managing
director Mr Pradip Agrawal.
b) For further issuance of a writ
or order or a direction upon the respondent
4 to award proper opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners who are legal heirs of the
managing director Mr Pradip Agrawal and
also take steps for consideration of the
pending objections already filed in the
records of the certificate case number
10/2013-14/181/2001-02 before proceeding
to take any action against the personal
assets of the petitioners and other legal
heirs of the late managing director of the
company;
c) For further issuance of writ or
order or a direction restraining the
respondent number 4 from taking any
coercive action against the petitioners and
all other legal heirs of late managing
director of Simran Metals Ltd including
their personal assets till the objections
already on the records of the certificate case
number 10/2013-14/181/2001-02 and also
adequate opportunity of hearing afforded to
the petitioners and other such legal heirs in
connection with recovery of alleged
certificate dues from out of the assets of late
managing director;
d) For further holding and a
declaration that the respondent at 4 could
not have proceeded to issue any process for
Patna High Court CWJC No.519 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
3/10
attachment of the personal assets of the
petitioners being legal heirs of late
managing director of Simran Metals Ltd on
account of recovery of certificate dues
against the company namely Simran Metals
Ltd as the outstanding dues as such could be
recovered only from out of the assets of the
company alone.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the certificate proceedings was initiated
against the Simran Metals Ltd and the Managing director Pradeep
Agrawal vide Certificate Case No. 10/2013 – 14/181/2001-02 and
the warrant of attachment vide Memo No. 141 dated 17.07.2019
was served upon the petitioners for the first time on 28.12.2024.
That the police authorities vide the above memo have been
requested to execute the process issued for attachment of property
in connection with recovery of certificate amount in Certificate
Case No. 10/2013-14/181/2001-02 against Simran Metals Ltd. and
the then Managing Director, late Pradeep Agrawal. Learned
counsel submits that by the time the order of attachment was
issued against the Managing Director, Pradeep Agrawal i.e., the
husband and the father of the petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2
respectively and he died in the month of May, 2021 itself,
therefore, issuance of the warrant against a dead person is void ab
initio and non-est in the eye of law. Further, it is stated that the
original amount recoverable from the husband of the Petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.519 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
4/10
No. 1 is only Rs. 1,98,59,170/- and the respondent-authorities are
trying to recover an amount of Rs. 3,94,00287/- from the
Managing Director, Pradeep Agrawal. Learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner submits that issuance of the warrant
vide Memo No. 141 dated 17.07.2019 which was served on
28.12.2024 is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions
of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914
(herein after referred to as ‘the PDR Act’). That the petitioners
are residing in the personal property of late Pradeep Agrawal
which has been succeeded by the petitioners and other legal
heirs by virtue of law of succession and the said property does
not belong to Simran Metals Ltd.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
Judgment of this Hon’ble Court (Ranchi Bench) dated
10.05.1999 passed in CWJC No. 11 of 1998 (R) reported in
(2000) 1 PLJR 591 (Smt. Gita Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors.)
and the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 07.04.2004
passed in CWJC No. 7271 of 2003 reported in (2004) 2 PLJR
515 (Amar Prasad Sahu v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and also
the Judgment dated 01.10.2018 passed in CWJC No. 22205 of
2013 (Most. Monakiya Devi v. The State of Bihar and Ors.).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that
issuance of warrant against a dead person is totally
Patna High Court CWJC No.519 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
5/10
impermissible and further, it is stated that the claim itself is
barred by limitations as the respondent-authorities have taken
their own sweet time in initiating the proceedings, that to
against a dead person. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed
this Hon’ble Court to allow the present writ petition and set
aside the impugned demand notice and also the warrant vide
Memo No. 141 dated 17.07.2019 and quash the certificate
proceedings.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has
stated that the petitioners are having a remedy of filing their
objections under Section 9 of the PDR Act before the Certificate
Officer and the same shall be considered in accordance with law
and necessary final orders under Section 10 of the Act will be
passed. However, the petitioners without filing their objections
have straightaway approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the
present CWJC and the same is not legally permissible. Learned
counsel has stated that the question of limitation does not arise
as the process of recovery of the certificate amount has been
continuing right from the period when the said Pradeep Agrawal
was alive. That the petitioners being the legal heirs of the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.519 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
6/10
Pradeep Agrawal are bound to pay the outstanding due amounts
owned by Pradeep Agrawal. Learned counsel has stated that as
per Section 52 of the PDR Act, the authorities are well within
their rights to proceed against the petitioners herein and also the
other legal heirs of the late Pradeep Agrawal. Learned counsel
has, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present
writ petition.
7. Admittedly, in the present writ petition the facts are
not in dispute, it is a fact that the said Pradeep Agrawal who is
the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and the father of the
petitioner no. 2. The cause of action for initiating the certificate
proceedings started in the year 2001-02 and Pradeep Agrawal
died in the month of May, 2021 and the certificate case has been
initiated in the year 2001-02 vide Certificate Case No. 10/2013-
14/181/2001-02 against the Simran Metals Ltd. and the then
Managing Director Pradeep Agrawal. It is settled law that
continuation of any proceedings against a dead person are non-
est in the eye of law and without jurisdiction.
8. This Hon’ble Court (Ranchi Bench) in the case of
Smt. Gita Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors. in the Judgment dated
10.05.1999 passed in CWJC No. 11 of 1998 (R) reported in
(2000) 1 PLJR 591 has held as under:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.519 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
7/10
“7. From perusal of the aforesaid
provision, it is clear that the provision is
applicable to cases where the certificate-
debtor dies before signing of the certificate.
This Section is attracted where the
certificate debtor dies after certificate is
issued but before the certificate has been
fully satisfied. It is well settled that where the
certificate debtor dies during pendency of
the certificate proceeding then the certificate
officer can proceed against the legal
representatives of the deceased brought on
the record and after serving them notice as
prescribed under the Act. This section does
not confer power to the certificate officer to
continue the proceeding against the legal
representatives even if the certificate
proceeding was initiated against the dead
person. To clarify this position, the Board of
Revenue have issued instructions. Clause 20
of the Board’s instruction reads as under:-
“20. Procedure to be followed
when a certificate-debtor dies before or after
the certificate is made. Section 52 of the Act
lays down the procedure to be followed when
a certificate-debtor dies at any time after the
signing of the certificate. If the debtor has
died before the certificate is signed the
certificate is void, and a fresh certificate
must be made against the legal
representative of the deceased. The
Initiative, where the sum is payable to the
Collector originally, should rest with the
Certificate Officer, for in such a case no
requisition is needed, in a demand of this
nature the Certificate Officer when striking
off for due reason a case, the demand in
which has not been fully realised or remitted
should promptly sign a fresh properly
Patna High Court CWJC No.519 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
8/10
prepared certificate for the realisation of
such demand and at the same time send
Intimation to the Requiring Officer for note
in his Register. Where the demand is not
payable to the District Collector originally,
the initiative lies with the authority who
made the original requisition.”
8. It is, therefore, clear that if the
certificate is signed after the death of
certificate-debtor then the certificate is void
and a fresh certificate must be made against
the legal representative of the deceased, in
that view of the matter, in my opinion, when,
admittedly, late husband of the petitioner
died before the certificate was signed, entire
certificate proceeding is vold and Certificate
Officer has no jurisdiction to continue the
certificate proceeding against the petitioner
unless a fresh certificate is signed and a
proceeding is initiated against the legal
representatives of the deceased or against
any person, who is in custody and possession
of the vehicle.”
9. This Hon’ble Court in the case of Amar Prasad
Sahu v. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2004) 2 PLJR
515 in the Judgment dated 07.04.2004 passed in CWJC No.
7271 of 2003 has held as under:-
“It is contended that in view of the
Division Bench decision of this Court in the
case of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Bihar,
reported in 2002 (2) PLJR 553, liability of a
company cannot be enforced against its
officers, Including Director or Managing
Director. Any debt payable by an
Incorporated Company can be realised only
by seizing the assets of the company and not
Patna High Court CWJC No.519 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
9/10
by putting in prison the Managing Director
or any of the officers of the Company. Mr.
Chatterjee, learned counsel for the
petitioner, thus, submitted that the petitioner,
who now ceases to be the Director of the
Company after June, 1994, the certificate
proceeding in question initiated against him
for realisation of the aforementioned debt is
wholly without jurisdiction and bad in law.”
10. And also in the case of Most. Monakiya Devi v.
The State of Bihar and Ors. passed in CWJC No. 22205 of
2013 dated 01.10.2018 has held as under:-
“6. Having heard the parties and
on consideration of the materials on record,
this Court finds considerable merit in the
writ petition. A bare perusal of the impugned
notice dated 12.09.2013 issued by the
Certificate Officer-cum-SDO, Dumraon,
Buxar as well as the requisition dated
04.08.2011 issued under Section 5 of the
PDR Act discloses that these have been
issued after 11.09.2010, when the husband of
the petitioner died. As such, the entire
proceedings are rendered illegal and a
nullity.”
11. Admittedly even in this case, the continuation of
the certificate case against the dead person and issuance of the
distress warrant against the petitioners seeking recovery of the
amount of Rs. 3,94,00,287/- is without jurisdiction and beyond
the period of limitation. Further, it is to be noted that the
petitioners have not been substituted in the Certificate Case No.
10/2013-14/181/2001-02 at any point of time till date.
Patna High Court CWJC No.519 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
10/10
12. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and
circumstances and also the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court
in the above mentioned cases, the impugned letter bearing
Reference No. 141 dated 17.07.2019 issued by the Certificate
Officer i.e. Respondent No. 4 herein and the certificate
proceedings initiated against the late Pradeep Agrawal and
against the petitioners herein in the certificate case bearing
Certificate Case No. 10/2013-14/181/2001-02 are hereby
quashed. However, it is made clear that this order does not come
in the way of the authority for proceedings against the Company
for recovery of the amounts due, if any.
13. With the above observations, the present writ
petition stands allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.07.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.