- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY way of this writ application, the order dated 17.2.2006 contained at Annexure6 to the writ application, has been challenged, whereby the respondent no.2, Sub Divisional OfficercumCertificate Officer, Madhupur, Deoghar, rejected the objection petition filed by the petitioner being Certificate Case No. 682/01 and directed him to deposit the entire certificate amount within 15 days. From the submission made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner, it appears that earlier also the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 441/04, which was disposed of by order an dated 10th February, 2004, by directing the petitioner to appear before the Certificate Officer,Madhupur, Deoghar and the same Certificate Officer, in turn, was directed to dispose of the objection petition filed under section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act as also the certificate case in accordance with law, after hearing the parties preferably within a period of two months. It is submitted that the petitioner being aggrieved by the consequent order passed on 17.2.2006, has moved this Court. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appears on behalf of State Bank of India, by relying upon the averments made in the counter affidavit, submits that at the first instance the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available under Section 60 of Jharkhand & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 and in the matters of revenue and principle statute, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has time and again held that the writ courts should not entertain the writ petitions, as a matter of course, where the aggrieved person has an alternative staturoy remedy available under the statute. The reference may be made in 2010(8) SCC 110. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a loanee of the Bank, who has defaulted in payment relating to the issuance of the certificate proceedings, which are being dragged on account of repeated journey up and down by pursuing unnecessary litigation. It is further submitted that this Court has also not granted any interim stay over the recovery of the dues and if the petitioner's grievances, are still subsisting he may approach the competent authority under the statute for redressal of his grievances by filing an appeal or revision, which may be permissible, in accordance with law.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that an order rejecting the objection petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act by Certificate Officer is itself appealable order under the Act, this Court does not find any reason to entertain this application which is being disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy if available in law . It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority may be directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal.;