Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Certificate Officer (Mining), Hazaribagh in Certificate Case No.01/2017-18 has been assailed whereby and whereunder, according to the petitioner, without considering the objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, the objection has been rejected.
(2.) Mr. A.K.Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1914), the petitioner has put his appearance as also filed objection as required under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. The Certificate Officer has called upon a report from the Requisitioning Officer vide order dated 20.09.2017 and the matter was posted awaiting the said report. Upto the order dated 06.01.2018, report has not been received before the Certificate Officer and waiting for the same, the case was posted on 28.01.2018 but the date for further hearing has been preponed from 28.01.2018 to that of 17.01.2018 showing therein that the report has been received giving therein parawise response to the objections filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 by the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that without intimating the further date fixed therein, the matter has been proceeded and ultimately on 22.02.2018 making therein observation about non-appearance of the petitioner on 01.02.2018, 15.02.2018 and 22.02.2018 the impression has been gathered by the Certificate Officer that the petitioner has nothing to say and accordingly the objection has been rejected. It has further been contended by referring to statement made at paragraph 6 to the writ petition that on 28.01.2018, the date fixed vide order dated 06.01.2018, the petitioner has approached to the office of the Certificate Officer to put his appearance but he has not been shown the record, rather, he has been informed that the next date would be communicated but no such date has been communicated. Further submission has been made that even accepting that there is no appearance but since objection has been filed, as such, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner has nothing to say and in that situation, after noting down his non-appearance, it was incumbent upon the Certificate Officer to decide on the basis of the objection vis- -vis the parawise reply but in no stretch of imagination it can be understood that when the objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 is available on record, the petitioner is having no objection with respect to the debt.
(3.) Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned A.C. to A.G., appearing for the respondent State has submitted by fairly accepting that when the date was fixed on 28.01.2018 it ought to have been heard on 28.01.2018 and in any case the decision, if any, has been taken for its preponement, it should have been communicated to the petitioner and therefore, he has submitted that since that part is not available, as such he has sought for time to seek instruction.;