Patna High Court
The District Manager Food And Civil Supply Corporation, AurangabadversusKrishna Devi
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellate court held that the statutory power to continue a certificate proceeding against legal heirs must be exercised within a reasonable period and the eight‑year delay rendered the notice unlawful, so the single judge’s order was affirmed.
Summary
The appellant, District Manager Food and Civil Supply Corporation, appealed against a single judge’s order that quashed a notice seeking recovery of Rs. 27,04,433 from the legal heirs of a deceased certificate debtor. The deceased had been the in‑charge of a purchase centre and was alleged to have caused a shortage of 719.36 quintals of paddy, leading to a certificate proceeding initiated in July 2013. He died in October 2014, and the authorities only issued a recovery notice to his heirs in 2022, nearly eight years later. The appellant argued that Section 52 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 permitted continuation of the proceeding against the heirs and that the amendment power under Section 11 was valid. The court held that while the statute allows continuation, it must be exercised within a reasonable period and is subject to the limitation provisions; the eight‑year delay was unreasonable and violative of the law. Consequently, the appellate court found no error in the single judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the single judge was justified in quashing the notice issued to the legal heirs under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.
- Whether Section 52 of the Act permits continuation of a certificate proceeding against legal heirs after an inordinate delay.
- Whether the amendment power under Section 11 of the Act can be exercised notwithstanding the limitation period.
Legislation cited
- Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 — s. 11, 52
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 120
Subjects
- public demand recovery
- certificate proceeding
- limitation period
- legal heirs
- statutory delay
- Bihar law
- continuation of proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.662 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4540 of 2023
======================================================
The District Manager Food And Civil Supply Corporation, Aurangabad
(Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,-Real Name)
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Krishna Devi Wife of Late Uma Shankar Thakur Resident of Village-
Chhakiya, P.S. Tisiauta, District- Vaishali.
2. Sanjeev Kumar Son of Late Uma Shankar Thakur Resident of Village-
Chhakiya, P.S. Tisiauta, District- Vaishali.
3. Rajeev Ranjan Son of Late Uma Shankar Thakur Resident of Village-
Chhakiya, P.S. Tisiauta, District- Vaishali.
4. Naveen Kumar Son of late Uma Shankar Thakur, Resident of Village
Chhakiya P.S. Tisiauta, District Vaishali.
5. The State of Bihar
6. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Aurangabad.
7. The District Supply Officer Aurangabd.
8. The District Certificate Officer, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 25-06-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred
against the order dated 02.05.2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4540
of 2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ
petitioners (respondent No. 1 to 4 herein) came to be allowed.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2024 dt.25-06-2026
2/12
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the
husband of writ petitioner no. 1 (respondent no.1 herein) was
appointed as Incharge Purchase Centre under Haspura Block in
the year 2012 for procurement of paddy from farmers. He
procured 92,976.23 quintals of paddy. It is alleged that he made
available only 92,256.87 quintals of the procured paddy,
resulting in a shortage of 719.36 quintals.
4. Consequently, a certificate proceeding, being
Certificate Case No. 15 of 2013-14, was initiated on 29.07.2013
against the husband of writ petitioner no. 1 (respondent no.1
herein) for recovery of the alleged loss. During the pendency of
the proceeding, he died on 29.10.2014.
5. Thereafter, a letter dated 16.08.2022 was issued
seeking recovery of Rs. 27,04,433/- from the writ- petitioners,
who are the legal heirs of the deceased. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioners filed the writ petition, which was allowed by the
learned Single Judge by order dated 02.05.2024, the relevant
part of the said order reads as follows:
4. In this particular case as seen from the record, the
initiation of the certificate proceedings are after a
lapse of more than nine years from the date of death
of the husband of the petitioner No. 1.
5. Admittedly, the period of limitation as prescribed
under Section 11 of the Bihar & Orissa Public
Demands Recovery Act, 1914 and also as per Article
Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2024 dt.25-06-2026
3/12
120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is only ninety days.
6. Having regard to the above settled legal position,
the writ petition is allowed and notice before the
certificate officers is quashed.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition without
properly appreciating the facts brought on record in the counter
affidavit and the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public
Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (for brevity 'the Act').
7. It is submitted that the certificate proceeding was
validly initiated against the original certificate debtor during his
lifetime and remained pending. Upon his death, notices were
issued to his legal heirs in continuation of the pending
proceeding. Referring to Section 52 of the Act, it is submitted
that a certificate proceeding can be continued against the legal
heirs for realization of the public demand from the estate of the
deceased certificate debtor.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that the original certificate debtor had already been served with
notice under Section 7 of the Act and had filed an objection
under Section 9 thereof. Pursuant to the order passed by this
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2523 of 2014, the Certificate Officer was
required to consider the objection and proceed in accordance
Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2024 dt.25-06-2026
4/12
with law. Therefore, the notices issued to the legal heirs were
merely in continuation of the pending certificate proceeding and
did not amount to initiation of a fresh proceeding. It is thus
submitted that the impugned judgment proceeds on an incorrect
appreciation of the factual and legal position and is liable to be
set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents/writ petitioners submits that the learned Single
Judge has rightly interfered with the recovery proceedings
initiated against the petitioners. It is submitted that the husband
of writ-petitioner no. 1 had died on 29.10.2014 and, after a lapse
of several years, the authorities sought to recover the alleged
dues from the legal heirs without following the procedure
prescribed under law.
10. It is further submitted that the learned Single
Judge, upon consideration of the facts and materials available on
record, rightly granted relief to the petitioners and no error,
either on facts or in law, has been committed warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.
11. The limited issue which arises for consideration in
the present appeal is whether the learned Single Judge was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2024 dt.25-06-2026
5/12
justified in interfering with the action of the appellant-
Corporation in seeking recovery of the alleged dues from the
legal heirs of the deceased certificate debtor and whether the
impugned judgment warrants interference in exercise of our
intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials available on record.
13. The facts are largely undisputed. The certificate
proceeding, being Certificate Case No. 15 of 2013-14, was
initiated on 29.07.2013 against the husband of writ- petitioner
no. 1(respondent no.1 herein) on the allegation of shortage of
719.36 quintals of paddy. During the pendency of the
proceeding, the original certificate debtor died on 29.10.2014. It
is also not in dispute that thereafter no effective step was taken
for continuation of the proceeding against the legal
representatives for a considerable period and the impugned
communication seeking recovery from the writ petitioners came
to be issued only in the year 2022.
14. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to
Section 52 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery
Act, 1914, which reads as under:
52. Procedure on death of certificate-debtor. - (1)
Where certificate-debtor dies before the certificate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2024 dt.25-06-2026
6/12
has been fully satisfied, the Certificate Officer may,
after serving upon the legal representative of the
deceased a notice in the prescribed form proceed to
execute the certificate against such legal
representative and the provisions of this Act shall
apply as if, such legal representative were the
certificate debtor and as if such notice were a notice
under Section 7:
Provided that where the certificate is executed
against such legal representative, he shall be liable
only to the extent of the property of the deceased
which has come to his hands and has not been duly
disposed of; and, for the purpose of ascertaining such
liability, the Certificate Officer executing the
certificate may, of his own motion or on the
application of the certificate-holder compel such
legal representative to produce such accounts as the
Certificate Officer thinks fit.
(2) for the purposes of this Section, property in the
hands of a son or other descendant which is liable
under Hindu Law for the payment of the debt of a
deceased ancestor, in respect of which a certificate
has been filed, shall be deemed to be property of the
deceased which has come to the hands of the son or
other descendant as his legal representative.”
15. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it
manifest that the statute merely enables continuation or
execution of a certificate proceeding against the legal
representatives of a deceased certificate debtor. The liability
fastened upon the legal representatives is not personal but is
expressly restricted to the extent of the estate inherited from the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2024 dt.25-06-2026
7/12
deceased. The provision, therefore, neither creates an
independent liability against the legal heirs nor authorises the
Certificate Officer to proceed against them dehors the procedure
established by law.
16. The reliance placed by the appellant on Section
52, in our considered opinion, is misconceived. The provision
undoubtedly empowers the Certificate Officer to continue the
proceeding against the legal representatives; however, such
power is required to be exercised in accordance with law and
within a reasonable period. Section 52 cannot be construed as
conferring an unfettered or perpetual authority upon the State to
revive proceedings against the legal heirs after remaining
inactive for years together.
17. The principal contention advanced on behalf of
the appellant is that in view of Section 52 of the Bihar and
Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, the certificate
proceeding could validly continue against the legal
representatives of the deceased certificate debtor. There can be
no quarrel with the proposition that the death of a certificate
debtor does not automatically terminate a pending certificate
proceeding and that, in an appropriate case, proceedings may be
continued against the legal representatives to the extent of the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2024 dt.25-06-2026
8/12
estate inherited by them. However, the existence of such power
does not answer the question involved in the present case.
18. Further, it would also be relevant to refer to
Section 11 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery
Act, which reads as follows:
“11. Power to amend certificate by addition,
omission or substitution of parties. - Subject to the
law of limitation the Certificate Officer may at any
time amend a certificate by the addition, omission or
substitution of the name of any certificate-holder or
certificate-debtor or by the alteration of the amount
claimed therein:
Provided that when any such amendment is made a
fresh notice and copy shall be issued as provided in
Section 7.”
19. The aforesaid provision empowers the Certificate
Officer to amend a certificate by addition, omission or
substitution of parties. However, the said power is expressly
made “subject to the law of limitation”, thereby indicating that
the legislature never intended such power to be exercised
irrespective of limitation. The expression “subject to the law of
limitation” necessarily requires the Certificate Officer to act
within the period prescribed by the applicable law of limitation.
20. The learned Single Judge has held that the
applicable limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2024 dt.25-06-2026
9/12
ninety days. Even otherwise, irrespective of the applicability of
Article 120, the admitted delay of nearly eight years in initiating
proceedings against the legal representatives remains wholly
unexplained. Such inordinate delay cannot be countenanced in
law.
21. The issue here is not the existence of power but
the manner and time within which such power was exercised. It
is a settled principle of law that even where a statute does not
prescribe a specific period of limitation, statutory powers are
required to be exercised within a reasonable period. In State of
Punjab v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers
Union Ltd., reported in (2007) 11 SCC 363, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that in the absence of a prescribed
limitation, jurisdiction must be exercised within a reasonable
period. The relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
“18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been
prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its
jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What,
however, shall be the reasonable period would
depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and
liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.”
22. Again, in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v.
Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that settled matters ought
Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2024 dt.25-06-2026
10/12
not to be reopened after a long lapse of time and that statutory
powers cannot be exercised after inordinate delay. The relevant
part of the said order reads as follows:
“11. It seems to be fairly settled that if a statute does
not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional
power, it does not mean that such power can be
exercised at any time; rather it should be exercised
within a reasonable time. It is so because the law
does not expect a settled thing to be unsettled after a
long lapse of time. Where the legislature does not
provide for any length of time within which the
power of revision is to be exercised by the authority,
suo motu or otherwise, it is plain that exercise of
such power within reasonable time is inherent
therein.”
23. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
the present case, we find that the original certificate debtor died
on 29.10.2014. The appellant has not brought on record any
material to show that prompt steps were taken for continuation
of the proceeding against the legal representatives immediately
thereafter. On the contrary, the record reveals that the recovery
notice against the writ petitioners was issued only in the year
2022, nearly eight years after the death of the original certificate
debtor. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished for such
prolonged inaction.
24. It is equally well settled that the liability of legal
Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2024 dt.25-06-2026
11/12
representatives is not personal but representative in character
and is confined to the estate inherited by them from the
deceased. Proceedings against legal representatives, therefore,
are required to be pursued strictly in accordance with law and
within a reasonable period. Section 52 of the Act merely enables
continuation of proceedings against the estate of a deceased
certificate debtor; it cannot be interpreted as conferring an
unrestricted or perpetual authority upon the State or its
instrumentalities to proceed against legal heirs at any point of
time irrespective of delay.
25. In the facts of the present case, the prolonged
silence on the part of the authorities for several years after the
death of the original certificate debtor and the subsequent
attempt to recover the amount from his legal heirs in the year
2022 cannot be said to be a valid exercise of statutory power.
The delay is not only substantial but remains wholly
unexplained.
26. Upon an independent examination of the record,
we are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the impugned
judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting
interference by this Court. The appellant has not been able to
demonstrate any error of law, perversity of finding, or
Patna High Court L.P.A No.662 of 2024 dt.25-06-2026
12/12
misappreciation of the material on record which may justify
interference in an intra-court appeal.
27. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is
dismissed.
28. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Ranjan Kumar Jha, J)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01.07.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.