2026:JHHC:18619 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 772 of 2021 ------ Nepal Chandra Mahato, S/o Chatur Mahto, R/o Bandhdih, PO- Bhelatand, PS-Katras, Dist-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Certificate Officer-cum-District Transport Officer at Dhanbad, PO & PS-Dhanbad, Dist-Dhanbad. 3. Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank, Regional Office, 113, Urmila, Tower, 1st Floor, Bank More, PO & PS-Bank More, Dist-Dhanbad. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV ------ 11/ 25th June, 2026 1. Heard, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State assisted by the present Certificate Officer. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “1. For issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing of the entire certificate proceedings initiated against the petitioner including certificate for demand of Rs.1,52,874/- including the costs contained in Annexure-1 and Annexure-5 under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 in connection with C.C. No.111/15-16 by Respondent No.2 and also the order dated 18.12.2020 (Annexure-5) issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner u/s 38 of the Jharkhand & Orissa Act, IV of 1914 in Form No.6 by the Respondent No.2 in connection with Certificate Case No.111/MVT/15-16 filed u/s 5 of the P.D.R. Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred as to P.D.R. Act) against the Vehicle No.JH10M-5330 for recovery of Rs.1,53,174/- along with the cost. AND / OR For issuance of any other writ/writ, order/orders, direction/directions as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that without determining or confirming the Certificate, the warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner. 4. On the aforesaid submission, on the last date, this 2026:JHHC:18619 Page | 2 Court called for the record of the Certificate Proceeding being Certificate Case No.111/MVT/15-16. 5. Today, the same has been produced by the present Certificate Officer. After going through the same, I find that the proceeding was initiated on 01.08.2019 thereafter, notices were issued to the Certificate-Debtor. Though, the first three notice does not suggest that any date but on 28.09.2016, fresh notice was issued. Thereafter, on 18.12.2020 as no one appeared, bailable warrant was issued. On 19.01.2021, the Lawyer of the Certificate- Debtor appeared and had taken a defense that he had paid the entire tax for the period, which the vehicle was under his possession and once the bank had repossessed the vehicle, there may be some dues, for which he is not liable. Considering his submission, notices were issued to the bank on 30.01.2021, fixing 18.02.2021 for further hearing. Thereafter, there is no order-sheet drawn up. 6. The order-sheet clearly suggests that proper procedure has not been followed. After notice is issued, after appearance, in terms of Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 when liability has been denied by the Certificate-Debtor, then in terms of Section 10, after hearing the parties, the Certificate Officer has to determine the petition, if necessary, the officer may take evidence also. The determination would be on the point as to whether the Certificate-Debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount, for which the certificate was signed. He may set aside the Certificate, modify or vary the Certificate accordingly. It is necessary to quote Section 10 of the (Act), which is as under:- “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: Provide 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.” 2026:JHHC:18619 Page | 3 7. This is a statutory duty, which the Certificate Officer must follow even in a situation where no petition under Section 9, denying liabilities is filed by the Certificate-Debtor. This independent adjudication is a sine quo non to proceed any further and to further recover the amount. This is a mandatory provision. Without following the procedure under Section 10 of the Act, any amount under the Certificate cannot be recovered nor any warrant of arrest can be issued under Section 38 of the Act which gives the power to arrest and detain. 8. Since, the mandatory provision has not been followed and rather has been flouted, the action of the respondents in issuing warrant of arrest is bad. Accordingly, order as contained in Annexure-5, is set aside. 9. The matter is remanded to the Certificate Officer to pass fresh orders, after giving opportunity of hearing, on the point of determination of the Certificate. The petitioner will appear before the Certificate Officer, on or before 14.07.2026 along with the copy of this order and a petition denying liability, which would be considered in terms of Section 10, strictly. The order which would be passed thereafter, should be communicated to the petitioner and then only the respondents can proceed accordingly. 10. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. 11. The original file is returned to the Certificate Officer. 12. The personal appearance of the present Certificate Officer, is dispensed with. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 25.06.2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 30.06.2026