Public-demand recovery must be reconsidered under Section 9 after hearing, with coercive action stayed pending a reasoned decision.

The petitioner challenged the recovery of ₹2,76,284.80 initiated under Section 5 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, in connection with the installation and alleged failure of solar lights in Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajapakar North.

She sought quashing of the recovery proceeding and the subsequent notice threatening coercive measures, including raid and warrant, for non-payment.

She also sought directions for recovery of the amount from the supplier and the Block Development Officer.

The respondents contended that the issue was covered by the Division Bench decision in Umeshwar Thakur @ Umesh Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors., C.W.J.C. No. 21707 of 2019, order dated 12 December 2022.

Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the recovery of ₹2,76,284.80 under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, required consideration by the appropriate authority under the statutory remedy.

Whether the amount sought to be recovered constituted a “public demand” under the Act and whether coercive steps should continue pending determination of the petitioner’s objections.

The Court applied the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, particularly the provisions concerning certificate proceedings under Section 5 and the remedy of filing objections or a petition under Section 9.

It relied on the Division Bench decision in Umeshwar Thakur @ Umesh Thakur v. State of Bihar & Ors., which directed the appropriate authority to consider the petitioner’s statutory petition, determine whether the amount fell within the definition of “public demand,” follow the principles of natural justice, pass a reasoned and speaking order, and refrain from coercive action until such determination.

The Court found that the dispute was substantially identical to the issue decided in Umeshwar Thakur.

Rather than adjudicating the validity of the alleged recovery on merits, it adopted the procedural directions issued in that precedent.

The petitioner was consequently required to approach the appropriate authority with supporting documents or file a fresh petition under Section 9.

The authority was directed to consider the objections expeditiously, examine whether the amount was legally recoverable as a public demand, provide an opportunity of hearing to the parties, and issue a reasoned order.

The Court expressly left all questions of merits open.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the appropriate authority with a copy of the order and supporting documents, or to file a fresh petition under Section 9 of the Act.

The authority was directed to decide the matter by a reasoned and speaking order, after observing natural justice and specifically determining whether the amount constituted a public demand.

No coercive steps were to be taken until such consideration and decision.

The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue available alternative remedies and to challenge the authority’s order before the appropriate forum.

No opinion was expressed on the merits.