NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.12.2006 passed by the Certificate Officer in Certificate Case No. 93 of 2004 -05 and the follow up orders passed thereafter.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he was the Director of the Company, namely, Lemos Cement Limited. The petitioner has since resigned and is no more the Director of the Company. The dues of the respondent -Electricity Board is admittedly against the Company but the certificate was issued against the Company and also in the name of the petitioner as he was the Director of the Company. It has been stated that the said Company was the consumer and on behalf of the Company, the petitioner had signed the documents in the capacity of the Director of the Company and he is not personally liable for the dues. It has been further stated that the petitioner resigned from the Company and he is no more Director of the Company. At any rate, the petitioner has got no personal liability and the liability, if any, is of the said Company. Without giving any opportunity of filing objection and hearing as required under Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act '), the respondents had earlier issued a distress warrant against the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed a writ petition on this Court being W.P. (C) No. 3599 of 2005 and this Court by order dated 20.07.2005 passed in the said petition set aside the order giving liberty to the petitioner to file objection under Sec. 9 of the Act and to raise all the questions including the jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer. The petitioner had accordingly filed his detailed objection denying his liability in the terms, as stated above. The Certificate Officer without hearing and determining the said objection, has passed the impugned order has issued distress warrant against the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the said fact situation submitted that the impugned order dated 16.12.2006 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in view of the provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 14 of the said Act.;