Certificate Officer must adjudicate objections under Section 9 of PDR Act before initiating recovery or attachment.

The petitioner, a rice miller, entered into agreements with the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (BSFC) for the 2011-12 and 2012-13 sessions

A dispute arose when the BSFC claimed the petitioner failed to supply 260 quintals of processed rice, leading to the initiation of Certificate Case No. 13/2014-15 for recovery of Rs. 5,56,688/-

The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of the Bihar Orissa Public Demands Recovery (PDR) Act, 1914, seeking adjustment of Rs. 1,64,000/- (comprised of a security deposit and milling/transportation charges)

Without formally deciding this objection, the Certificate Officer issued a distress warrant and attachment orders on March 6 and 7, 2020

The petitioner approached the High Court, which via interim order dated April 24, 2020, stayed the execution and directed the petitioner to deposit an admitted balance of Rs. 75,313/-, which was complied with

1. Whether the Certificate Officer could proceed with execution measures (distress warrant and attachment) without first adjudicating the petitioner’s objection filed under Section 9 of the PDR Act

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the adjustment of security deposits and milling/transportation bills against the total demand raised by the BSFC

The Court applied the provisions of the Bihar Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, specifically Section 9 regarding the filing of objections, Section 10 regarding the hearing and determination of such objections, and Section 14, which prohibits the execution of a certificate until the objection filed under Section 9 has been heard and determined

The Court also upheld the principles of natural justice, requiring an opportunity for a hearing and the passage of a reasoned/speaking order by quasi-judicial authorities

The Court observed that the Certificate Officer failed to follow the statutory mandate of the PDR Act. Specifically, Section 14 stipulates that no execution can proceed during the pendency of a Section 9 objection

The Certificate Officer had issued distress warrants based on a BSFC communication that adjustments would only be considered after full payment, which the Court found to be an improper deferral rather than the "determination" required by Section 10

The Court held that these factual disputes—including the verification of truck challans and interest calculations—must be adjudicated by the competent authority rather than dismissed summarily, despite BSFC contesting the validity of bills and citing pending litigation as grounds to withhold the security deposit

Since the petitioner had already shown bona fides by depositing the admitted amount per the Court's interim direction, a full administrative review of the claims for adjustment was necessary

The Certificate Officer is ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording a hearing to both parties within five months

The interim stay granted earlier effectively merged into this direction for fresh adjudication