N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 26th August, 2006, whereby the Certificate Officer has illegally issued distress warrant against the petitioners without determining the objection filed by them under Sec. 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act ').
(2.) IT has been stated that after receipt of notice under Sec. 7 of the Act served on the petitioners, they appeared and filed their objection under Section 9 of the Act. The Certificate Officer has not considered the said objection and ' not passed any order. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Certificate Officer cannot take any coercive action without determining the petitioners ' objection and as such, the order issuing distress warrant against the petitioners is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Learned Counsel, relying upon the decisions passed by this Court in the cases of Ratna Plastic Jhumri Tilaiya, through its proprietor Bishwajit Das Gupta and Anr. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2005 (4) JLJR 123 and Roll Well Enterprises, Ranchi V/s. State of Jharkhand and Ors., submitted that in the counter affidavit, the respondents have not said anything about the determination of objection filed by the petitioners? rather they have said that the objection filed by the petitioners, in fact, cannot be taken as objection under Sec. 9 of the Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Certificate Officer has not applied his mind on objection filed by the petitioners under Sec. 9 of the Act and has passed the order mechanically and illegally.
(3.) LEARNED JC to SC III, on the other hand, submitted that the objection filed by the petitioners, in fact, is no objection under Sec. 9 of the Act and the petitioners have only expressed their inability to pay the certificate amount, unless and until they are given opportunity for disposing of their vehicles. It has been submitted that since there was no denial of liability and nothing was to be determined, the Certificate Officer has passed the impugned order for executing the certificate. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the order of the learned Certificate Officer.;