- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 13.03.2012 by which the appellant's/ petitioner's writ petition W.P.(C) No. 4398 of 2005 has been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 60 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act . Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge committed error of law by ignoring the direction of this Court issued to the respondents in petitioner's writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 997 of 1992(R) which was decided vide order dated 18.07.1996. In the said order dated 18.07.1996 this Court directed that if there had been occasion before the Certificate Officer to decide the objection after taking evidence, that could have been done by taking note of the contention of the petitioner and, thereafter, taking note of the contention, this Court remanded the matter back to the Certificate Officer to decide the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Act. In the order dated 18.07.1996 it was specifically observed that the "Respondent No.2 in case shall have difficulty in deciding the objections, he shall also lead evidence as required under Section 10 of the Act and thereafter shall proceed to determine the question raised by the parties". According to learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant it is a case of violation of principle of natural justice. It is also submitted that a recovery proceeding was initiated in the year 1991 for the dues earlier to the year 1991. The petitioner's contention throughout was that the Coal India Limited had deposited Rs. 50 Crores, out of which the petitioner's liability was also paid and this includes the liability which is raised against the petitioner in the said certificate proceeding. It is submitted that in spite of this objection, when petitioner's objection was rejected, then the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 997 of 1992 (R) which was allowed vide order dated 18.07.1996 and matter was remanded back to the same authority. After 18.07.1996, no proceeding was taken in spite of several requests made by the petitioner and all of a sudden the proceeding was initiated and ultimately by order dated 12.02.2005 petitioner's objection was again rejected. It is clear from the order dated 12.02.2005 that in spite of this Court's order and petitioner's requests, petitioner was not given opportunity to lead evidence and to prove the documents of payment made against the liability.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that since the evidence is documentary evidence, there was no need of giving any permission for oral evidence to the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to produce the documentary evidence, it has been observed that evidence is only the documentary evidence, therefore, there may not be any need of oral evidence. The petitioner's documents, if produced, would have been considered by the authority without there being any supporting oral evidence in a proceeding under Section 10 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act . We considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also in view of the fact that this Court was not satisfied with the reply affidavit filed by the respondents. After perusal of the record, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner's contention from very beginning was that the amount in question has been paid on behalf of the petitioner by the Coal India Limited and that too, it was paid on 19.02.1991. The petitioner, therefore, gave specific date of deposit and the petitioner could have proved this fact by producing the documentary evidence. From the order impugned dated 12.02.2005 it is clear that in spite of this Court's order in C.W.J.C. No. 997 of 1992(R) dated 18.07.1996 the petitioner was not given any opportunity to produce the evidence. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the documents are trustworthy documents and cannot be fabricated and forged, therefore, if permission is granted to the petitioner to show the documents again to the concerned authority and if necessary, to prove them by oral evidence, then the matter will be clear. From the objections made in the order dated 12.02.2005, we are of the considered opinion that the concerned authority committed violation of principle of natural justice as well as did not comply with the direction given by this Court in its order dated 18.07.1996 in C.W.J.C. No. 997 of 1992(R) and did not provide opportunity to lead evidence to the petitioner. Therefore, solely on this ground we are of the considered opinion that writ petition should not have been dismissed only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy in such an old matter of demand of prior to the year 1991.;