- (1.) This application has been filed seeking substitution of the petitioner namely, Mewa Lal Jaiswal who died on 17.02.2014 leaving behind his wife, two sons and two daughters. The application seeking substitution is allowed. Let necessary correction be carried out. W.P. (C) No. 4836 of 2013 Challenging notice dated 22.09.2011 and order dated 13.07.2013 in Miscellaneous Certificate No. 26 of 1992-93, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The original petitioner purchased Putrar Coppice Coup No. 7 in the year, 1977-78 for a sum of Rs. 1,51,000/- for which security deposit of Rs. 15,100/- was furnished by him. A requisition for realizing a sum of Rs. 33,900/- was sent by the Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar on 19.09.1992 whereupon, the Certificate Officer issued notice to the deceased petitioner on 25.09.1992. The deceased petitioner filed reply dated 16.11.1992 in Miscellaneous Certificate No. 26 of 1992-93 denying his liability to pay Rs. 33,900/- however, the objection filed by the deceased petitioner was not decided and the matter remained pending for about 20 years. Suddenly, letter dated 22.09.2011 for realizing a sum of Rs. 1,75,589/- besides, cost of Rs. 4.25/p was issued in Miscellaneous Certificate No. 26 of 1992-93. The deceased petitioner filed an application on 19.10.2011 whereupon, the Certificate Officer directed the certificate holder to file relevant documents which however, were not filed by the certificate holder. In the meantime, the deceased petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1095 of 2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2013 directing the Certificate Officer to proceed in accordance with law, after considering the objection filed by the deceased petitioner. The deceased petitioner though produced a copy of order passed in W.P. (C) No. 1095 of 2013, without any notice to the deceased petitioner the certificate case was disposed of vide order dated 13.07.2013.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the matters arising out of a contract, in which no liquidated damage has been fixed, the certificate proceeding cannot be instituted for realizing the alleged loss of Rs. 33,900/-. It is further submitted that after the security deposit of 15,100/- was forfeited and Putrar Coppice Coup No. 7 in Plot No. 83 was further auctioned, the alleged damage cannot be recovered from the deceased petitioner. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the deceased petitioner purchased Coup for Rs. 1,51,000/- and since he did not exploit the Coup, the department suffered revenue loss of Rs. 33,900/- and therefore, the certificate case was instituted.;