Writ jurisdiction is bypassed where an effective statutory remedy under the Public Demand Recovery Act exists.

The petitioner, formerly a Block Agriculture Officer, challenged Certificate Case No. 02/2015–16 initiated by the District Certificate Officer, Araria, for recovery of ₹2,27,55,480.71 under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (“PDR Act”).

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Certificate Officer issued an order dated 5 March 2025 directing the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount by 2 April 2025, failing which attachment and arrest warrants would be issued.

The petitioner sought quashing and stay of the certificate proceedings and the subsequent coercive order.

The matter had earlier been directed to be listed after the decision in Pawapuri Mills v. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., as the issues were considered similar.

Both sides agreed that the case was covered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Pawapuri Rice Mills v. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3777.

1. Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the certificate proceedings and the order dated 5 March 2025 should be entertained in writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies under the PDR Act are available.

2. Whether the petitioner should be granted protection against coercive recovery proceedings while pursuing the statutory remedy.

The Court applied the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, which provides a comprehensive statutory mechanism for filing, serving, contesting and adjudicating recovery certificates, together with remedies before the civil court, appeal, revision and review.

The Court relied on Pawapuri Rice Mills v. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3777, wherein the Supreme Court held that parties challenging certificate proceedings should ordinarily exhaust the remedies available under the PDR Act; alleged procedural irregularities could be raised before the competent statutory authority.

The Supreme Court further directed that a statutory remedy filed within thirty days be entertained without objection as to delay or limitation.

The High Court found that the petitioner’s challenge to the certificate proceedings was squarely covered by Pawapuri Rice Mills.

Since the PDR Act provides an adequate statutory framework and appellate remedies, the Court declined to adjudicate the petitioner’s objections—including the challenge to the recovery and procedural aspects—in writ jurisdiction.

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s approach, it directed the petitioner to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy and required the competent authority to overlook the delay in filing it.

To preserve the efficacy of that remedy, the Court restrained the respondents from taking coercive steps in the meantime, subject to the petitioner filing the statutory proceeding within the prescribed period.

The petitioner was directed to avail the appropriate statutory remedy under the PDR Act within four weeks from receipt of the judgment; the concerned authority was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal within three months of its filing.

No coercive steps were to be taken in Certificate Case No. 02/2015–16 during that period, subject to the petitioner pursuing the statutory remedy within four weeks.

All questions on the merits were left open for determination by the competent statutory authority.