0

Bailable warrant quashed for not following the section 9 of public demands recovery act – Jharkhand high court

Bailable warrant quashed for not following the section 9 of public demands recovery act – Jharkhand high court

A writ petition was filed under article 226 of the constitution of India demanding the quashing of entire proceedings of Certificate Case No. 362 of 2000 was found under the law and the quashing of a bailable warrant issued against the petitioner was quashed by the single judge bench of  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD in the case of Wrecko Glass Industries versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors. W.P. (C) No. 1948 of 2013.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the bailable warrant/distress warrant was issued by the Certificate Officer even though objection under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 was filed but not decided. the court after hearing the counsel directed the State counsel to come up with the entire record about Certificate Case No. 362 of 2000.

The learned counsel for the respondents on presenting the original record submits that objection filed by the petitioner as under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 has not yet been decided. The certificate officer submitted that issuance of distress warrant/bailable warrant without deciding the objection made under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 cannot be said to be a correct proceeding.

The court after hearing both sides concluded that since the writ petitioner had filed objection as under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, but, the same has not been decided as yet, as per the record of Certificate Case No. 362 of 2000. As such the issuance of distress warrant/bailable warrant cannot be said to be justified do not align with the statutory provision for the reason that when a notice is being issued in exercise of the power conferred under Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, which is for the purpose to provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed certificate debtor. Therefore, the issuance of a distress warrant/bailable warrant vide order dated 12.12.2012 cannot be said to be under the law. And was quashed and set aside and directed the certificate officer to decide the objection filed by the writ petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, in accordance with the law, preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. and with these directions, the writ petition was disposed .

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by Naveen sharma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat