- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 24th July, 2003 (Annexure3) passed by the respondent No. 6 in Certificate Case No. 40 of 2001, has preferred this writ application stating that despite his detailed objection made under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, now adopted by the State of Jharkhand, and without determining the liability of petitioner under Section 10 of the Act of 1914, the Certificate Officer has directed the petitioner to deposit the entire certificate amount. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the distress warrant issued and seeks quashing of the entire certificate proceedings in Certificate Case No. 40 of 2001 pending before the Certificate Officer -cum -Managing Director Sinqhbhum District Central Cooperative Bank Limited Chaibasa (respondent No.6). Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to the objection filed under Section 9 of the Act of 1914 as contained in Annexure -2 wherein he has specifically denied the liability. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 24.07.2003 purported to have been passed after considering the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act, is not at all a speaking order and has been passed in mechanical manner, saddling the petitioner with the liability of Rs.2,51,950/ - failing which distress warrant for attachment of the petitioner's property would be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the impugned order is non -speaking order and the contention of the petitioner has not been taken into account while passing the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the division bench judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s. Ratna Plastic, Jhumri Taliya through its proprietor, Bishwajit Gupta and another v. State of Bihar and others reported in 2003 (1) JCR 302 (Jhr) to support his contention that any officer is required to dispose of the objection under Section 9 of the Act of 1914 by proper reason and speaking order and certain cost were also imposed on the State by the Court.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent No.6 on the other hand submits that the petitioner was put in jail in execution of the distress warrant and his objection has already been rejected in the year 2003.;