Issuing a coercive warrant before deciding a Section 9 objection and passing a Section 10 order is illegal.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Braj Kishore Rice Mill, had entered into an agreement with the District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, for milling paddy during the 2012–13 procurement year.

The agreement required delivery of 100% custom-milled rice within the prescribed cut-off date.

The Corporation alleged that the petitioner failed to deliver the required rice and thereby caused a loss of ₹30,42,611.80, following which a requisition was submitted for initiating certificate proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (“PDR Act”).

Certificate Case No. 64 of 2014–15 was initiated, and the petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of the PDR Act on 1 November 2014.

While the objection remained pending and without a final determination under Section 10, the Certificate Officer issued a warrant against the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged the certificate proceedings, the warrant, and the alleged defects in the certificate and requisition.

The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under the PDR Act and that proceedings under Section 10 were pending.

Whether the Certificate Officer could issue a warrant against the petitioner without first deciding the objection filed under Section 9 and passing an order under Section 10 of the PDR Act.

Whether the warrant issued during the pendency of the petitioner’s objection was illegal and liable to be quashed for violating the statutory procedure and principles of natural justice.

Whether the pending certificate proceedings should be quashed in their entirety or instead be remitted for decision in accordance with the PDR Act.

The Court applied Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. Section 7 concerns service of notice in certificate proceedings; Section 9 permits the certificate-debtor to file objections; and Section 10 requires the Certificate Officer to adjudicate such objections before proceeding against the certificate-debtor.

The Court applied the principle of natural justice that a person’s objection must be considered and decided by a reasoned order before coercive recovery measures are undertaken.

No judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court noted that the petitioner had filed a statutory objection under Section 9, which remained pending.

Although the respondents asserted that the Section 10 proceedings were pending because the petitioner had not been participating, the record showed that a warrant had been issued without any final order determining the objection.

Since coercive action had been taken before completion of the mandatory statutory adjudicatory process, the warrant was held to be illegal per se.

The Court therefore did not finally adjudicate the petitioner’s broader objections concerning defects in the certificate, requisition, service, court fees, or limitation.

Instead, it preserved the certificate proceedings and directed the Certificate Officer to decide the pending objection after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Certificate Officer on 1 September 2027.

The Certificate Officer was directed to hear the petitioner and pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within three months of the petitioner’s appearance.

No coercive action was permitted until the Certificate Officer passed the final order.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, along with any pending interlocutory applications.