[2025:JHHC:20108] 1 W.P. (C) No.5435 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.5435 of 2004 ------ Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited, having its Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O: Koyla Nagar, P.S: Saraidhella, District: Dhanbad through its Area General Manger, Eastern Jharia Area as Certificate Debtor. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner of Mines, State of Jharkhand at Ranchi 3. The Certificate Officer (Mining), Dhanbad Zone, Dhanbad 4. The District Mining Officer, Dhanbad. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Puja Agrawal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG-III ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) for quashing the demand vide Notice No.1822 dated 13.11.2003 and the Writ of Attachment dated 16.01.2004; annexed as Annexure-3 and 4 respectively, of this writ petition. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent No.4- District Mining Officer, Dhanbad got instituted a certificate case for recovery of an amount of Rs.97,754/- claiming the same to be the royalty payable by the petitioner. Besides the said principal amount, the interest over the same was also [2025:JHHC:20108] 2 W.P. (C) No.5435 of 2004 involved in the said certificate; basing upon which the Certificate Case No.47 of 1979-80 was instituted by the Certificate Officer-cum-Deputy Director (Mines), Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad- respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 without taking into consideration of the fact that certificate of demand, was not supported by any assessment order or any supporting document; issued the notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, which has subsequently been adopted by the State of Jharkhand also, calling upon the petitioner to file objection, if any. The petitioner filed the objection under Section 9 of the said Act within the prescribed period of 30 days denying the liability on the grounds mentioned therein. The Respondent No.3 kept the said objection filed under Section 9 of the said Act pending and in abeyance, without passing any order for 24-25 years and without adjudicating the contention of the petitioner, the respondent No.3 has issued warning letter upon the petitioner calling upon the petitioner for deposit the said certificate amount, which has been annexed at Annexure-3 and subsequently also issued the warrant of attachment in respect of the movable property of the petitioner for recovery of the said certificate amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 492 and submits that therein in the facts of that case, the petitioner’s Company instead of filing the appeal under Section 60 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India invoking its appellate jurisdiction; the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India [2025:JHHC:20108] 3 W.P. (C) No.5435 of 2004 disposed of the appeals, upholding the preliminary objection of the State Government regarding availability of alternative remedy to appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Hindalco Industries Limited vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Jhar 2062 and submits that therein in the facts of that case, where the Certificate Officer without deciding the objection of the petitioner’s Company under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 has straightway proceeded to pass an interim order directing it to deposit 50% of the amount and rest by way of a Bank Guarantee; the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the same was contrary to the provision of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 and the Certificate Officer has to adjudicate and determine the liability after consideration of the objection of the petitioner and the claim of the rival parties. Hence, it is submitted that in this case also as the Certificate Officer, without adjudication of the objection filed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 by the petitioner, having issued the demand vide Notice No.1822 dated 13.11.2003 (Annexure-3) and the Writ of Attachment dated 16.01.2004 (Annexure-4). Hence, it is submitted that the same be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General-III appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Writ Petition (Civil) but fairly submits that the Certificate Officer was expected to adjudicate the objection raised by the petitioner after giving an opportunity of being heard to them and to determine the same in terms of [2025:JHHC:20108] 4 W.P. (C) No.5435 of 2004 provisions of Section 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to refer to Sections 9 & 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 which reads as under:- “9. Filing of petition denying liability. (1)The certificate debtor may within thirty days from the service of the notice required by Section 7, or where the notice has not been duly served then within thirty days from the execution of any process for enforcing the certificate, present to the Certificate Officer in whose office the certificate is filed or to the Certificate Officer who is executing the certificate, a petition, in the prescribed form, signed and verified in the prescribed manner, denying his liability, in whole or in part. (2)If any such petition is presented to a Certificate Officer other than the Certificate Officer in whose office the original certificate is filed, it shall be sent to the latter officer for disposal. 10. Hearing and determining of such petition.- The Certificate Officer in whose office the original certificate is filed shall hear the petition, take evidence (if necessary) and determine whether the certificate-debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount for which the certificate was signed; and may set aside, modify or vary the certificate accordingly: Provided that if the Certificate Officer is not the Collector, and considers that the petition involves a bonafide claim of right to property, he shall refer the petition to the Collector for orders, and the Collector, if he is satisfied that a bonafide claim or right of property is involved, shall make an order cancelling the certificate.” 8. It is crystal clear from the plain reading of Section 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 that the same mandates that the Certificate Officer in whose office the original certificate is filed, shall hear the petition, take evidence, if necessary and determine whether the certificate is debtor is liable for whole or any part of the amount for which the certificate has been signed and if necessary, may set aside or modify the certificate accordingly. [2025:JHHC:20108] 5 W.P. (C) No.5435 of 2004 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that after filing of the objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, the Certificate Officer has failed to act in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 and without adhering to the provisions of Section 10 of the said Act but, rather bypassing the same, has issued the demand vide Notice No.1822 dated 13.11.2003 being Annexure-3 and the Writ of Attachment dated 16.01.2004 being Annexure-4, respectively of this Writ Petition (Civil); as already mentioned above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the demand vide Notice No.1822 dated 13.11.2003 (Annexure-3) and the Writ of Attachment dated 16.01.2004 (Annexure-4) as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraph of this judgment, are not sustainable in law. Hence the same are quashed and set aside. The Certificate Officer-cum- Deputy Director (Mines), Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad is directed to hear the objection of the writ petitioner-certificate debtor, take evidence (if necessary) and determine whether the certificate-debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount for which the certificate was signed. 10. This Writ Petition (Civil) is disposed of accordingly. 11. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Certificate Officer- cum-Deputy Director (Mines), Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad on 25th of August, 2025; to take further instruction regarding the certificate proceeding from the Certificate Officer-cum-Deputy Director (Mines), Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd of July, 2025 AFR/ Saroj