Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked where the PDR Act provides an efficacious statutory remedy.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Ajanta Rice Mill, challenged Certificate Case No. 19 of 2014–15 initiated by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (“PDR Act”).

He sought settlement of accounts after adjustment of milling, transportation and handling charges and the security deposit, and challenged the certificate proceeding on grounds including non-service of the certificate and requisition, defects in Form No. 1, absence of proper enquiry, and recovery of a disputed amount.

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner produced an order in Request Case No. 255 of 2017 and an arbitration award dated 25 September 2020 passed in Arbitration Case No. 07 of 2019, contending that the demand forming the basis of the certificate proceeding had been rejected by the arbitrator.

The respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pawapuri Rice Mills v. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3777, concerning the availability of statutory remedies under the PDR Act.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy under the PDR Act against the certificate proceeding, particularly where the challenge involved disputed facts and alleged procedural irregularities.

Whether the alleged defects in Form No. 1, non-service of the certificate and notice, failure to conduct a proper enquiry, and the disputed nature of the recoverable amount could be examined directly in writ jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioner could rely on the arbitration award dated 25 September 2020 and raise it, along with other objections, before the Certificate Officer under Section 9 of the PDR Act.

The Court applied the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, particularly Section 9, which permits the certificate-debtor to file objections to the certificate, along with the statutory remedies of appeal, revision and review under Sections 60, 62 and 63 and the civil-court remedies under Sections 43 and 44.

The Court relied principally on Pawapuri Rice Mills v. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3777, which held that the PDR Act is a comprehensive code providing adequate procedural safeguards and remedies, and that parties should ordinarily exhaust those remedies rather than invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge disputed questions or alleged procedural deviations.

The Supreme Court had also directed that statutory remedies be entertained without reference to delay where pursued within the permitted period.

The Court found that the petitioner’s challenges concerned the validity of the certificate proceeding, the character of the alleged debt as a public demand, compliance with procedural requirements, service of notices, and the effect of the arbitration award—issues involving disputed facts and statutory adjudication.

Applying Pawapuri Rice Mills, the Court held that such matters should first be presented before the competent Certificate Officer under the statutory mechanism rather than examined in writ jurisdiction at that stage.

The arbitration award did not lead the Court to decide the merits; instead, the petitioner was permitted to place the award and all other permissible objections before the Certificate Officer.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file objections under Section 9 of the PDR Act, together with the arbitration award and supporting documents, before the Certificate Officer within one month from receipt or communication of the order.

The Certificate Officer was directed to entertain and decide the objections in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing.

No coercive steps were to be taken in the certificate proceeding during that period, subject to the petitioner availing the statutory remedy within the prescribed time.