IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6533 of 2024 M/s Maa Vaishno Enterprises, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, through its proprietor, Santosh Kumar Singh ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Certificate Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur 2. The Branch Head, Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, Syndicate Bank, Jugsalai, East Singhbhum 3. The Branch Head, Jugsalai Branch, Canara Bank, Bistupur, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. Manish Kumar For the State: Mr. Shashak Shekhar, A.A.G-V For the Bank: Mr. P. A. S. Pati ----- 04/04.02.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure-3 to the present writ petition) passed by the respondent No.1 in Certificate Case No. 97/BL/23-24 whereby the application preferred on behalf of the petitioner seeking time to file objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1914’) has been rejected and bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against it. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the present writ petition. 3. In pursuance of the requisition filed by the respondent-Bank for recovery of Rs.11,40,200/-, the respondent No.1 signed the certificate and accordingly Certificate Case No. 97/BL/23-24 was initiated on 20.04.2024 and the notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1914 was issued to the petitioner (certificate debtor). Thereafter, the said certificate case was taken up on 29.06.2024 and on the said date, the respondent No.1 observed that the service report of the notice issued to the petitioner was received. The said certificate case was then taken up on 18.07.2024 and the order passed on the said date suggests that an application along with the petitioner’s Vakalatnama was filed seeking time to submit objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914. The said application was however rejected and distress warrant was issued by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner. Subsequently, the said certificate case was taken up on 30.09.2024 and on the said date, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner giving reasons for the delay occurring in filing of objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 i.e. ill health of its proprietor. It was also mentioned on behalf of the petitioner that while taking loan, its documents of Fixed Deposit, Recurring Deposit and LIC were also taken as equitable mortgage and a request was made to dismiss the said certificate case. However, the said application was also rejected by the respondent No.1 and bailable warrant of arrest was issued against it. 4. It is trite law that even if the certificate debtor does not file objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, the Certificate Officer is required to pass an order under Section 10 of the Act, 1914. However, in the present case, after rejecting the petitioner’s application, the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 issuing bailable warrant of arrest against its proprietor without resorting to Section 10 of the Act, 1914. On that ground alone, the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 5. The petitioner is granted time till 21.02.2025 to file objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 before the respondent No.1, who on receipt of the same, shall pass an order under Section 10 of the Act, 1914 after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent-Bank expeditiously preferably within eight weeks thereafter. 6. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)