Statutory power to recover public dues from legal heirs must be exercised within a reasonable period.

The husband of Respondent No. 1, Uma Shankar Thakur, was appointed as an Incharge Purchase Centre in 2012. Alleging a shortage of 719.36 quintals of paddy, the Appellant initiated Certificate Case No. 15 of 2013-14 on 29.07.2013.

During the pendency of the proceeding, the certificate debtor died on 29.10.2014.

After eight years of inactivity, the Appellant issued a letter dated 16.08.2022 seeking to recover Rs. 27,04,433/- from his legal heirs.

The legal heirs (Respondents 1-4) challenged this in a writ petition, which the learned Single Judge allowed on 02.05.2024, quashing the notice on the grounds of limitation.

The Corporation filed this intra-court appeal against that order.

Section 52 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, permits the continuation of proceedings against legal representatives but limits their liability to the extent of the inherited estate.

Section 11 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, makes the power to amend certificates by substituting parties "subject to the law of limitation".

In the absence of a prescribed statutory period, jurisdiction must be exercised within a "reasonable period" (State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [(2007) 11 SCC 363] and Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil v. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale [(2009) 9 SCC 352]).

The Court observed that while Section 52 empowers the Certificate Officer to proceed against legal heirs, this power is not perpetual.

Under Section 11, any substitution of parties is expressly subject to limitation laws.

The court noted that the certificate debtor died in 2014, yet the Appellant took no effective steps until 2022.

Applying the doctrine of "reasonable time," the Court held that a delay of eight years is inordinate and unexplained.

The Court reasoned that statutory authorities cannot unsettle settled matters after a long lapse of time, and the failure of the Corporation to act promptly meant that the power to continue the proceeding had lapsed through inaction.

It held that the recovery notice issued in 2022 was not a valid exercise of statutory power due to the substantial and unexplained delay of eight years following the debtor's death.

The Court quashed the recovery proceedings against the legal heirs, concluding that the Appellant failed to demonstrate any legal error or perversity in the original writ order.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.