Warrants of arrest or attachment cannot be issued without evidence of due service of notice.

The petitioners entered into a partnership agreement on September 30, 2004, with two others to operate a brick kiln

The petitioners claimed the partnership subsequently dissolved and they conducted business independently, while the remaining partners continued the kiln

The District Mining Officer initiated Certificate Case No. 33/9-10 for recovery of unpaid royalties, penalties, and interest for the 2009-10 session

The Deputy Director-cum-Certificate Officer issued warrants of attachment of movable properties (Memo No. 895 dated 25.05.2015) against the petitioners for Rs. 1,66,610/- each

The petitioners moved the High Court via a writ of certiorari to quash these warrants, alleging they received no prior notice of the proceedings

1. Whether the warrants of arrest and attachment issued by the Certificate Officer were legally sustainable in the absence of proof of service of notice upon the petitioners

2. Whether the impugned orders violated the principles of natural justice

The Court applied the Principle of Natural Justice, specifically the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which necessitates that no person shall be condemned unheard.

It further relied on the procedural requirements of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act (implied via the nature of the Certificate Case), which mandates the following of due process of law—including the service of notice—before coercive actions like attachment or arrest can be executed for the realization of certificate amounts

The petitioners contended that the impugned warrants were issued without notice, violating natural justice, especially as they were no longer part of the partnership during the period of default

The Respondent Department argued in their counter-affidavit that notices and reminders were issued but ignored by the petitioners

However, upon perusing the record, the Court observed that the Respondents failed to annex any supporting documents or evidence to prove that notices were actually served upon the petitioners

Drawing a distinction between the mere assertion of issuing notice and the legal proof of service, the Court reasoned that the authorities cannot proceed with drastic measures like attachment of property or arrest without strictly adhering to the due process of law

The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned orders/letters (Memo No. 895 dated 25.05.2015) were quashed

the Court granted liberty to the Certificate Officer to proceed with the recovery of dues against the petitioners and their partners, provided such proceedings are conducted strictly in accordance with the law and after proper notice