Certificate Officer Must Decide Section 9 Objections Under Section 10 After Hearing Before Coercive Recovery

The petitioner, the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Borha @ Rasulpur Gaus, challenged Certificate Case Nos. 303–305 of 2014–15 initiated under the Public Demands Recovery Act, along with consequential coercive measures, including an attachment notice and warrant of arrest.

The alleged liability arose from the purchase of solar lamps under the Twelfth Finance Scheme during the years 2006–07, 2008–09 and 2009–10, for which the petitioner and the then Panchayat Secretary were held jointly liable for alleged excess payment, together with interest.

The petitioner submitted that the purchases were made after inviting quotations and obtaining approval of the Gram Sabha, and that payments were made through cheques.

During the proceedings, the petitioner conceded that she had filed objections to the first certificate notice under Section 9 of the Public Demands Recovery Act (“the Act”).

The Certificate Officer allegedly proceeded to issue a second notice and a warrant of arrest without deciding the objections under Section 10 of the Act.

The High Court stayed Certificate Case No. 305 of 2014–15 on 15 October 2019, due to which no order under Section 10 was passed.

1. Whether the Certificate Officer could proceed with coercive recovery measures without first considering and deciding the petitioner’s objections filed under Section 9 of the Act in accordance with Section 10.

2. Whether the matter should be remitted to the Certificate Officer for adjudication of the petitioner’s objections after affording her a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Court applied Sections 9 and 10 of the Public Demands Recovery Act. Section 9 permits the certificate-debtor to deny liability and file objections to the certificate, while Section 10 requires the Certificate Officer to consider and determine those objections in accordance with law before proceeding further.

The Court also applied the principle of procedural fairness, holding that the certificate-debtor must receive a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an order under Section 10 is passed.

The petitioner had invoked the statutory procedure by filing objections under Section 9 of the Act. Since those objections had not been adjudicated under Section 10, the subsequent issuance of coercive measures, including the warrant of arrest, was procedurally premature.

The Court noted that the failure to pass an order under Section 10 was attributable to the stay granted in the writ proceedings, rather than resolving the merits of the alleged liability itself.

Accordingly, instead of determining whether the alleged excess payments were legally recoverable, the Court directed the Certificate Officer to consider all claims and contentions after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Certificate Officer was directed to dispose of the case within three months from receipt of the order.

No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner until such order was passed.

The writ petition and any pending interlocutory applications were accordingly disposed of.