2026:JHHC:22294 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5442 of 2026 …...... Rajesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 52 years, S/o Shri Bansi Sahu, resident of Village - Anandi, P.O. & P.S. - Ormanjhi, District – Ranchi ………… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi. 2. Certificate Officer (Mines), North Chotangapur Circle, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S. & District - Hazaribagh 3. District Mining Officer, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District – Ramgarh ………… Respondents CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashim kr. Sahni, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Omya Anusha (A.C. to A.A.G- IA) …...... 02 /27.07.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following relief :- “1. For grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari, or an order of direction, for quashing the entire preceding including the order dated 21/01/2026, passed by the respondent no. 2 in Certificate Case No. 13 of 2021-22 whereby, the respondent no. 2, without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, directed issuance of warrant of attachment.” 2. It is not necessary to direct the respondents to file a counter-affidavit, as the petitioner has prayed for certiorari, where the impugned order speaks for itself. 3. The facts of the case are that on 29.10.2021 a proceeding was initiated by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for realization of sum of Rs.1,53,270/- under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred as then Act) and on the same date notice was issued under Section 7 of the Act. Thereafter, on 21.11.2025, on the basis of report submitted by respondent No.3, the respondent No. 2 directed for issuance of Demand Certificate. Further, 2026:JHHC:22294 Page | 2 vide order dated 21.01.2026, respondent no.2 has issued warrant of attachment. Challenging the entire proceeding of certificate Case No. 13 of 2021-22 including the order dated 21.01.2026 the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner submits that he is not the owner or operator of the alleged brick kiln and, therefore, no liability towards royalty or interest can be fastened upon him. It is contended that the alleged notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 was never served upon the petitioner, thereby depriving him of an opportunity to contest the demand. The petitioner argues that the certificate proceeding is vitiated as the mandatory requirements under Section 5 and Rule 1 of Schedule II of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 regarding a valid requisition were not complied with. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to establish valid service of notice in the manner prescribed under Rule 2 of Schedule II of the Act. The petitioner contends that the Certificate Officer issued the warrant of attachment without following the mandatory procedure contemplated under Sections 9 and 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, rendering the proceedings illegal. Lastly, the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Counsel on the behalf of Respondents submits that a certificate proceeding was validly initiated for recovery of ₹1,53,270/- as mining dues, under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. It is their case that a notice under Section 7 Act, 1914 was issued on 29.10.2021 and steps were taken for its service through the District Mining Office. The respondents submit that despite issuance of notice, the petitioner neither appeared before the Certificate Officer nor filed any objection disputing the liability, necessitating issuance of the demand certificate. It is further submitted 2026:JHHC:22294 Page | 3 that after issuance of the demand certificate through registered post and in the absence of any payment or objection from the petitioner, the Certificate Officer rightly proceeded to issue the warrant of attachment for recovery in accordance with law. The Certificate Officer proceeded in accordance with law only after receiving the service report and being satisfied regarding the petitioner's non-appearance. Since the petitioner failed to contest the proceeding or file objections within the prescribed time, the Certificate Officer was justified in issuing the demand certificate and taking consequential recovery measures. The amount sought to be recovered constitutes a public demand recoverable under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, and the certificate proceeding was initiated strictly within the statutory framework. The petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy under the Act,1914 and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The allegations regarding non-compliance of Sections 5, 7, 9 and 10 of the Act,1914 are misconceived and do not vitiate the recovery proceedings. The writ petition has been filed only to delay recovery of government dues legally payable by the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and materials brought on record, I find that the impugned proceedings suffer from procedural irregularities warranting interference. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that no notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 was ever served upon him and that he was consequently deprived of the opportunity of filing an objection under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner has also questioned the validity of the requisition and the procedure adopted by the Certificate Officer in issuing the demand certificate and warrant of attachment. 7. On perusal of the records it appears that although the respondents claim to have issued notices, there is no conclusive material demonstrating effective service upon the petitioner. The 2026:JHHC:22294 Page | 4 impugned order also does not disclose any consideration of the petitioner's liability or record any satisfaction regarding compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 before proceeding with coercive recovery. Since the issuance and service of notice constitute the foundation of a certificate proceeding, strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the PDR Act is indispensable. Any action affecting the civil rights of a person must conform to the principles of natural justice by affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed in Certificate Case No. 13 of 2021-22, for issuance of warrant of attachment against the petitioner, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Certificate Officer (Mines), North Chotanagpur Circle, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 2) for fresh consideration. The petitioner will appear before the Certificate Officer with a copy of this order within 15 days from today. The Certificate Officer will further give 21 days to the petitioner to file objection. Thereafter, the Certificate Officer will proceed with the proceeding as per law and conclude the same, at the earliest. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be decided independently by the Certificate Officer. 10. Till a fresh order is passed, no coercive steps, shall be taken against the petitioner, including execution of the warrant of attachment. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 27th July, 2026 S.K.D./CP-2 Uploaded on 30.07.2026