2025:JHHC:34319-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 58 of 2014 Vikash Kumar Mahato s/o Hari Mahato, resident of Village Narkopi, P.O. Dumdumi, P.S. Topchachi, Dist. Dhanbad … … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Dhanbad. 2. Circle Officer, P.O., P.S. Topchachi, Dist. Dhanbad. 3. Certificate Officer, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Dhanbad. … … … Respondents W.P. (C) No. 5979 of 2012 Vikash Kumar Mahato s/o Sri Hari Mahato, resident of Village Narkopi, P.O. Dumdumi, P.S. Topchachi, Dist. Dhanbad. … … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Dhanbad. 2. Circle Officer, P.O., P.S. Topchachi, Dist. Dhanbad. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Dhanbad. 4. Officer Incharge, Topchanchi Police Station, P.O., P.S. Topchachi, Dist. Dhanbad. 5. Union of India through the National Highways Authority of India, G 5 & 6, Sector - 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075. … … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Praveen Chandra, Advocate Mr. Vivek Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ishaan Anand, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I For the NHAI: Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate --------- 27/Dated: 17.11.2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5979 of 2012 for grant of the following substantive relief:- “a) for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 11 dt. 08.05.12 (Annexure 12) whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 2 has rejected the plea of the petitioner for refund of the amount of Rs. 8,90,000/- without considering that no auction could be occasioned for the said toll collection as no land existed for the purposes of establishment of stand and / or collection of toll and the respondents themselves failed to provide vacant land for collection of toll, and b) for quashing the demand letter no. 152 dt. 01.02.2011 (Annexure 7) whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 2 has called upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 8,90,000/- without 2025:JHHC:34319-DB -2- considering that the respondents themselves failed to provide vacant land for collection of toll, and c) Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to cancel the allocation of toll collection occasioned at Topchanchi- Dhanbad Bus/Tacker stand and to return the amount of Rs. 8,90,000/- deposited by the petitioner towards the bid of collection of toll in as much the toll collection could not be occasioned in view of the fact that the respondent authorities failed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the lands for collection of Toll Tax and further that the land had already been acquired and used up in road widening for the purposes of National Highway. Or in the alternative d) Commanding upon the respondents to sympathetically consider the representation of the petitioner for exemption of payment of the remaining amount towards Toll collection in view of the fact that the respondent authorities failed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the lands for collection of Toll Tax and further that the land had already been acquired and used up in road widening for the purposes of National Highway and to consider the petitioner's candidature for allotment of Toll collection elsewhere by adjustment of the said deposited amount” 3. However, since the proceedings are not stayed in this writ petition, a certificate proceeding for recovery of the amount of Rs. 8,90,000/- to be initiated by the respondents constraining the petitioner to file W.P.(C) No. 58 of 2014 for grant of the following substantive relief:- a) “For quashing the order dt. 03.12.13 passed in Certificate Case No. 79/11-12 (Annexure 5 series) wherein the respondent no. 3, in an illegal manner authorized the Circle Officer, Topchanchi and Police Officer, Topchanchi to execute distress warrant against the petitioner inspite of the fact that the next date fixed in the matter was on 28.12.13. b) For quashing the order dt. 27.11.12 passed in Certificate Case No 79/11-12 (Annexure 5 series) wherein the respondent no. 3 has issued Distress Warrant against the petitioner inspite of the fact that vide order dt. 27.09.12, the respondent no. 3 had kept the matter pending in view of pendency of writ application in Hon'ble High Court. c) For quashing the order dt. 13.09.12 passed in Certificate Case No. 79/11-12 (Annexure 5 series) wherein the respondent no. 3 has rejected the objection filed by the petitioner without deciding the same on merits and only on the basis of the false assertion that the earlier writ application was dismissed.” 4. An impression was given by the learned counsel for the petitioner to this Court that his client has not at all collected the tolls, however, this impression is replied by the respondents in the counter affidavit are not only denied by the respondents but even the petitioner in his 2025:JHHC:34319-DB -3- representation dated 28.09.2010 addressed to the SDO, Dhanbad has candidly and categorically admitted that he has been collecting the toll tax (in a very difficult situation) and is therefore, not able to collect it properly. The fact remains that the petitioner has collected the toll tax but to what extent is required to be determined and it can only be determined in the certificate proceedings that are pending before the Certificate Officer, Topchanchi. This would require the parties to lead evidences before the Certificate Officer, Topchanchi. 5. Without going into the merits of both these cases, we deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions permitting the petitioner to approach the Certificate Officer, Topchanchi, who shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case both orally as well as by documentary evidence and the same procedure shall also be followed by hearing the respondent State. Since the proceeding pertains to the year 2011-12, the Certificate Officer is directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in any way by 31st March, 2026. 6. In the meanwhile, the distress warrant issued against the petitioner shall remain suspended/kept in abeyance. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 17.11.2025 N.A.F.R. APK/VK.