( 2026:JHHC:8680 ) -1- W.P. (C) No. 5327 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5327 of 2011 Devendra R. Purohit, son of Sri Ram Awatar Purohit, proprietor of M/s Brahmanand Farms and Research Centre, resident of Village- Darasai, P.O. Bada Khursi (Mahulia), P.S. Ghatshila, District- East Singhbhum … Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi 2. District Certificate Officer, Gumla, P.O., P.S. & District- Gumla 3. Accounts Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Gumla, P.O., P.S. & District- Gumla … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Ms. Trishna Sagar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P.-I ----- 06/26.03.2026 Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. In the present writ petition, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 04/06.08.2011 passed by respondent no.2 in Certificate Case No.8/2009, whereby, preliminary objection raised by the petitioner against the maintainability of the certificate proceeding has been rejected. 3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in absence of compliance of mandatory provisions under Sections 5 and 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, learned Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for deciding the preliminary issue and in view of that, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside and the learned Court may kindly be directed to decide afresh. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has already examined 7 witnesses and in view of that, the authority can decide both the issues i.e. preliminary as well as main issue ( 2026:JHHC:8680 ) -2- W.P. (C) No. 5327 of 2011 simultaneously to avoid consumption of time. 5. The matter is arising out of certificate case. The objection filed by the petitioner has been rejected by respondent no.2. This matter is still pending here since 2011. Although there is provision of appeal against the said order in light of the said Act, however, considering the pendency of this writ petition since 2011 and in remanding the matter to the appellate authority, the matter will be further delayed. 6. In view of the settled principle that all issues whether preliminary or otherwise are required to be decided simultaneously. Stopping of proceedings pending before the competent authority by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for deciding preliminary issue is not proper in the interest of expeditious adjudication of disputes. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 04/06.08.2011 passed by respondent no.2 in Certificate Case No.8/2009 is, hereby, set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned authority i.e. respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 will decide the said objection along with main issue simultaneously in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated: 26th March, 2026 Ajay/