Certificate Officer Must Decide the Section 9 Objection; No Coercive Steps Pending Decision.

The petitioner challenged Certificate Case No. 412 of 2022–23 and the distress warrant dated 2 February 2023, alleging that he had not received notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, and that his objection under Section 9 had not been considered

The Bank stated that it had sanctioned the petitioner a loan of ₹4.5 lakh, which he failed to repay, and that the Section 7 notice was duly served; according to the Bank, the petitioner did not appear before the Certificate Officer, who consequently issued a warrant

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to raise an objection under Section 9 of the PDR Act before the Certificate Officer, given his claim that he did not receive the Section 7 notice

Whether coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner while that objection is being considered

The Court referred to Sections 7 and 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914: Section 7 concerns notice in certificate proceedings, while Section 9 provides a mechanism for the certificate-debtor to file an objection

The Court cited no precedent and did not determine whether the notice had in fact been served; it directed that the objection be considered in accordance with law

The petitioner disputed service of the Section 7 notice, while the Bank maintained that it had been duly served and that the petitioner had failed to appear

Rather than resolve that factual dispute or adjudicate the challenge to the certificate proceeding on its merits, the Court considered that the petitioner could raise his objection before the Certificate Officer under Section 9. It directed the petitioner to file the objection and required the authority to decide it within a specified period

In the meantime, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner