Aggrieved parties must pursue statutory remedies under the PDR Act before invoking writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner challenged the certificate notice dated 24 September 2014 and the entire proceeding in Certificate Case No. 64 of 2014–15, initiated by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation for recovery of the alleged dues under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (“PDR Act”).

He also challenged the order dated 18 January 2016 by which a warrant of arrest had been issued against him.

During the writ proceedings, the High Court stayed operation of the arrest warrant, subject to the petitioner depositing ₹1,00,000 before the Certificate Officer and filing a detailed reply.

The respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pawapuri Rice Mills v. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3777, and the Patna High Court’s subsequent decision in Ranjeet Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors.

The petitioner contended that his case was factually distinguishable and that related proceedings remained pending.

Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the certificate proceedings and alleged procedural irregularities should be examined directly under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, despite the availability of statutory remedies under the PDR Act?

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory remedy against the certificate proceedings, with protection against coercive steps during the prescribed period?

The Court applied the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, particularly the statutory mechanism for contesting certificate proceedings under Section 9 and the appellate, revisional, review and civil-court remedies contemplated under Sections 43, 44, 60, 62 and 63.

It relied on Pawapuri Rice Mills v. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3777, which held that the PDR Act is a comprehensive code providing adequate procedural safeguards and statutory remedies, and that parties ordinarily should exhaust those remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction, especially where the challenge concerns disputed facts or alleged procedural irregularities.

The Court also followed Ranjeet Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors., wherein similar challenges were relegated to the statutory authority without adjudication of the merits.

The petitioner’s objections concerned the validity of the certificate notice, the legality of the certificate proceeding, procedural compliance and the recoverability of the amount as a public demand.

These matters involved alleged procedural irregularities and issues capable of being examined by the competent authority under the statutory framework of the PDR Act.

Applying Pawapuri Rice Mills, the Court held that the existence of an efficacious statutory remedy justified declining to exercise writ jurisdiction at that stage.

The Court therefore left the merits of the petitioner’s objections and the respondents’ recovery claim open for consideration by the appropriate statutory authority.

In view of the petitioner’s pending challenge and the earlier protection against arrest, the Court permitted him to pursue the statutory remedy while safeguarding him from coercive action, conditional upon timely availing that remedy.

The petitioner was directed to avail the statutory remedy under the PDR Act before the appropriate authority within four weeks from receipt of the judgment.

Any delay in filing the appeal was directed to be condoned, and the competent authority was directed to decide the appeal within three months of its filing.

No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner in connection with the certificate proceeding, provided he availed the statutory remedy within the stipulated period.

The interlocutory application, if any, was also disposed of.