Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder notice issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 vide letter no.164 dated 01.02.2016 issued under the signature of Certificate Officer (Elect. Revenue), Karandih, Saraikella-Kharsawan has been sought to be quashed. It is the case of the petitioner that electricity connection to run an industry situated in industrial area, Jamshedpur bearing consumer no.H.J.A.P-088 for a contract demand of 100 KVA under H.T tariff in the month of December, 1987 has been provided. The litigation has been started in between the petitioner and respondents with respect to rate of Fuel Surcharge during the period 1993-94 to 1999-2000 which ultimately compelled the petitioner to approach before this Court under its writ jurisdiction by filing W.P.(C) No.2296 of 2002. This Court vide order dated 08.12.2009 has disposed of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation stating the details about its claim and grievance along with the supporting documents within two weeks with a direction upon the respondent to pass reasoned order within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of such representation and thereafter raise fresh bill to the petitioner. In terms of the said order the petitioner has made representation on 23.12.2009 (Annexure-3) stating his claim supported by relevant documents, thereafter the matter has been fixed for hearing and ultimately an order has been passed on 20.04.2016 by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the decision has been taken for not charging DPS up to 16.08.2000 and if DPS is written with the bill amount of the consumer that should be immediately removed from the bill, accordingly bill of the same may be recasted, consequently the matter of DPS unpaid for fuel surcharge cannot be decided, however final decision in the matter is pending before the Division Bench of the High Court. It is the grievance of the petitioner that before passing of the order as has been passed on 20.04.2016 the certificate proceeding has been initiated by asking the petitioner to give objection vide notice issued under Section 7 of the P.D.R. Act, dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure-7) directing the petitioner to explain the reason as to why the amount of Rs.2,84,22,488/- be not paid, failure thereof not realized. Although no objection under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act has been filed, rather the present writ petition has been filed questioning the action of the respondent in issuing the notice under Section 7 to the P.D.R. Act, 1914 mainly on the ground that when this Court has disposed of the writ petition pertaining to the dispute of the said amount which is the subject matter of the notice under Section 7 to the P.D.R. Act, in pursuance thereto representation has been filed but before taking such decision the authorities have come to the conclusion about liability holding the said amount to be Public Demand within Section 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 and thereafter has initiated the proceeding for recovery as such the amount, ground has been raised that subsequent issuance of notice dated 01.02.2016 the authorities have taken decision as on 20.04.2016 coming to the conclusive finding that if any amount of DPS is lying pending with the petitioner that should be immediately be removed from the bill depending upon the final outcome of the decision pending before the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, issuance of notice under Section 7 to the P.D.R. Act, is without application of mind. It has further been submitted by putting reliance upon the submission made at paragraph 7 to the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the said bill will be recasted as per order dated 20.04.2016 and thereafter suitable amendment will be prayed before the learned Certificate Officer in the Certificate Amount, therefore, the respondent is also in dispute about legal sanctity of the notice dated 01.02.2016 and so far as the contention that the certificate would be amended by making an application before the Certificate Officer with provision of that amendment has not been provided in the P.D.R. Act 1914, and hence the impugned notice is not sustainable in the eye of law. Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted by putting reliance upon the stand of the counter affidavit that since the competent authority has taken decision on 20.04.2016 in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2296 of 2002, therefore, the certificate amount, reference of which has been made at Annexure-7 dated 01.02.2016 could be modified by recasting the amount of the bill as such impugned notice may not be interfered with. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the rival submissions, has found some undisputed fact in this case that the electricity connection has been provide in favour of the petitioner/unit but for the purpose of charging bill the payment of surcharge DPS, some dispute has arisen which led the petitioner to approach to this Court by filing writ petition disputing the said amount, the said writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation raising the claim as would appear from the order dated 08.12.2009 passed in W.P.(C) No.2296 of 2002 (Annexure-2). The petitioner has made representation by raising the claim but till the date of filing of the writ petition, no order has been passed in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.2296 of 2002. The petitioner has been served with a notice under Section 7 to the PDR, Act, 1914 dated 01.02.2016 asking him to file objection as stipulated under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 for holding him certificate debtor for an amount of Rs.2,84,22,488/- and to recover if failure in depositing the said amount which is impugned in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 has been enacted for recovery of the amount which is declared to be public demand within the meaning of Section 6 to the Act, 1914 and when the competent authority will come to the conclusive finding that the amount pertaining to the public demand, a notice is required to be issued under Section 7 to the Act, 1914 for providing an opportunity of hearing and in case, if the petitioner is disputing the liability for depositing the said amount, he is required to file objection denying the liability as provided under Section 9 to the Act, 1914 and thereafter the same would be determined as stipulated and provided under Section 10 to the Act, 1914. Mr. Navin Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents by submitting reliance at paragraph 7 to the counter affidavit that the amount as has been referred in the notice under Section 7 (impugned) is required to be recasted in pursuance to the decision dated 20.04.2016 and thereof the amendment is required to be made in the certificate, the question herein is, that in absence of any provision having not been provided under the Act, 1914 to make amendment in the certificate proceeding can it be amended ? This Court is of the view that in the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 there is no such provision for making any amendment in the requisition made by the requisitioning authority for recovery of the said amount for public demand and that cannot be, it is for the reason that when a notice is being issued under Section 7, the proposed certificate debtor is required to furnish his objection with respect to amount reflected in the impugned notice at the time of filing objection under Section 9 to the Act, 1914 and suppose the reply has been given by the concerned by way of objection under Section 9 and subsequent thereof the authority is coming out with conclusion about the amount, the entire proceeding has to go and a fresh notice is required to be issued as provided under Section 7 by providing an opportunity to the concerned to make an objection as required under Section 9 and it cannot be permissible to amend the certificate in course of pendency of the certificate proceeding. Furthermore, the action of the authority is required to be taken strictly in pursuance to the provision of law on the principle that a thing is required to be done strictly in accordance with law applicable and if the thing will be allowed to be done contrary to the provision of law, it will be nothing but de hors of rule/law. On the basis of aforesaid position of law since respondents have come out with the pleading as would appear from the paragraph 7 that the bill is to be recasted in pursuance to the order dated 20.04.2016, therefore, if the petitioner would be allowed to make an objection under Section 9 the entire objection is said to be contrary to the factual aspect since the amount which has been required to be recovered in the present case an amount of Rs.2,84,22,488/- will have lost its sanctity after recasting of the bill and there will be no meaning of objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. In that view of the matter even though the petitioner has got opportunity under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 and the High Court in interfering with the proceeding on the stage of notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 supposed to be loath depending on the facts and circumstances. Admittedly, herein the respondents are not disputing about recasting of the bill which is subject matter of the notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914, therefore, in the ends of justice even if the respondents have come out with fresh recasted bill by presenting different bill since the money is to be paid is different, therefore, this Court is required to quash the notice dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure-7) issued under Section 7 of the P.D.R. Act, 1914, accordingly, notice dated 01.02.2016 (Annexure-7) is quashed. It is the settled position of law that on technicality nobody is allowed to take advantage and furthermore since the petitioner is also in dispute about his liability since the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 20.04.2016, therefore, respondents are required to come out with recasted bill, accordingly, respondents are directed serve the petitioner recasted bill in pursuance to order dated 20.04.2016 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failure in making payment, the respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of.;