Rice Millers may challenge public demand recovery by availing statutory remedies regardless of limitation periods.

The petitioner, a Rice Miller, filed a writ petition seeking to quash Certificate Case No. 20 of 2015-16 pending before the Certificate Officer, Hajipur

The proceeding was initiated for the recovery of ₹7,98,690.24 under the Bihar Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914

The petitioner challenged the Section 7 notice dated 15.04.2015, a bailable warrant issued on 13.08.2015, and an order dated 12.12.2016 which rejected his objection filed under Section 9 of the Act without assigning detailed reasons

1. Whether the certificate proceedings for recovery against the Rice Miller are maintainable and should be quashed in light of prevailing judicial precedents

The court primarily applied the legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawapuri Rice Mills vs. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3777

While Rice Millers may raise jurisdictional facts against realizing sums as "public demand," they must generally exhaust statutory remedies provided under the Bihar Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, rather than seeking extraordinary writ jurisdiction for procedural deviations

The petitioner initially argued that the case was covered by previous Division Bench rulings such as The Certificate Officer of Siwan Central Co-operative Bank v. State of Bihar (2006), which favored quashing such proceedings

The Court observed that the legal landscape had been subsequently clarified by the Supreme Court in Pawapuri Rice Mills

The Court reasoned that since the Supreme Court had already addressed the issue of Rice Millers invoking writ remedies against public demand notices, the present case must be decided in alignment with that superior court mandate

Consequently, the Court did not delve into the merits but directed the petitioner toward the statutory appellate framework

The Court held that the petitioner is at liberty to avail of the statutory remedies available under the Act. Following the Supreme Court’s directions, if the petitioner files an appeal/objection within thirty days, the authority must entertain the case on its merits without reference to delay or the period of limitation

All pending interlocutory applications were consequently disposed of