Jharkhand High Court
Nutan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its … on 16 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 6706 of 2019
Nutan Singh, (aged about 57 years), Wife of - Indrajeet Kumar Singh,
Resident of - Village- Navagain Durgapur, P.O. & P.S. Sangrampur,
District Munger (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of
Transport, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, office at - F.F.P. Building,
H.E.C. Area, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. District Transport Officer, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar Town,
District B. Deoghar. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Aditya Raman, A.C. to G.A. III
---
Lastly heard on 27.11.2024
15/16.01.2025
1. Heard the learned counsel present on behalf of the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: –
“For issuance of appropriate Writ/Writs, Order/Orders or
Direction/Directions, in the Nature of Certiorari for quashing the
paper publication [vide Annexure-4] published in Hindi daily
news paper – Prabhat Khabar, Deoghar Edition dated 22.9.2019
(being Item No. 21) by which it was notified being demand of
arrears of Road Tax and Additional Tax from the petitioner, on
account of passenger Bus No. JH-15D-6131.
AND
For quashing the issuance of Body Warrant Dt. 13.9.2019
(Annexure-3) against Petitioner in terms of Section 38 of Bihar
and Odisha Public Demand Recover Act 1940, which has been
issued contrary to the fact that a ‘No Objection Certificate’ have
been deemed to be given by the DTO Deoghar to Petitioner.
AND
For quashing the demand of Rs.5,82,585/- and its interest thereto
Rs.69,910.20 = Total Rs.6,52,492/- from the Petitioner, by the
Respondent Authority.”
Arguments of the Petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the solitary point
which he wants to argue in the present case is as to whether the District
Transport Officer, Deoghar, who is also the certificate holder, could
also be the certificate officer of the present case. He has submitted that
the objection, if any, that may be filed in terms of Section 9 of Bihar
and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 has to be filed before
the Certificate officer and since the certificate officer is the certificate
holder, he cannot be a judge in his own case and therefore the present
writ petition has been filed.
4. During the course of argument, no other point has been argued
in this case. This has also been recorded in the order dated 27.11.2024.
Arguments of the Respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there
is no illegality in the appointment of the Certificate Officer in the
present case. He has referred to paragraph 8 and 9 of the counter
affidavit dated 25.11.2024 and submitted that the District Transport
Officers in serial no. 1 to 14 of the letter dated 06.01.2020 were
appointed as a certificate officers by the sanction of the Commissioner
who sanctioned the same vide letter no. 143 dated 05.10.2018. He has
submitted that Notification has been annexed which is in terms of
Section 3(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act,
1914. The learned counsel has also submitted that the recovery through
certificate proceedings is essentially in the nature of execution and
submitted that there were no merits in the arguments of the petitioner.
Findings of this Court.
6. Vide order dated 25th July 2024 the point involved in this case
was formulated as follows: –
‘Whether the certificate holder can be allowed to function as
certificate officer or not?’
The foundational facts of the case.
Case of the petitioner.
7. That the facts leading to the present case as per the records is that
Petitioner had purchased a Passenger Bus bearing Registration No. JH-
15D-6131 from Tata Motor Dealer-M/S R.A. Himmatsingka & Co.
which was registered before Deoghar District Transport Office in the
name of Petitioner on 23.07.2001 on the given address of petitioner as
B.N. Jha Path, Deoghar. However, on 02.09.2009, the vehicle was
shifted to the jurisdiction of District Transport Office, at Banka (Bihar)
2
and the new address was incorporated in the owner book in terms of
Section 49 of Motor Vehicle Act and thereafter the taxes were paid to
the District Transport Officer, Banka (Bihar).
8. It has been stated in the writ petition that Respondent No.2 issued
body warrant dated 13.09.2019 against the petitioner, of which
petitioner was not aware. It is the case of the petitioner that at no point
of time the petitioner received any show cause notice from Respondent
No. 2 and all of a sudden, the petitioner came to know from the
newspaper Prabhat Khabar, Deoghar Edition dated 22.09.2019 (at Item
No. 21) that body warrant had been issued. On 27.09.2019, the
petitioner filed a representation before Respondent No. 2 bringing to
the notice of the respondent no.2 that the said vehicle was brought to
Banka (Bihar) and all taxes were paid at Banka and therefore the
Demand notice was not proper. When no action was taken, a legal
notice dated 21.10.2019 was issued stating that in terms of Section 48
of Motor Vehicle Act, the Registering Authority, Banka sought for ‘No
Objection Certificate’ from District Transport Officer, Deoghar and
when there was no communication from the District Transport Officer,
Deoghar in terms of Section 48, new address of Banka (Bihar) was
recorded and thereafter taxes were realized by District Transport
Officer, Banka after endorsing the present address at Banka. As per the
writ petition, once the vehicle was brought to Banka and after exercise
in terms of Section 47 and 48 by the Registering Authority Banka and
subsequently the District Transport Officer, Banka who modified the
owner book to the extent that the vehicle was operating in State of Bihar
and the vehicle number was also changed to BR-51-9105 and primary
taxes were paid at Banka, there was no occasion to raise any demand
by the respondent District Transport Officer, Deoghar.
Case of the Respondents.
9. In this case, two counter affidavits have been filed, one prior to
formulation of the aforesaid point and one thereafter. In the counter
affidavit dated 18.01.2020, it has been stated at paragraph 9 that the
vehicle was registered in Deoghar Transport Office in the name of the
petitioner along with hypothecation with Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and
3
this fact has been concealed by the petitioner. The petitioner had only
paid the tax of the said vehicle till the year 2008 in the District Transport
Office, Deoghar and did not pay since 2009 up to the date of filing the
of counter affidavit. The fact that the vehicle was registered in the
District Transport Office, Banka (Bihar) was denied by the respondents
in their counter affidavit by stating that the petitioner cheated the
government for more than Rs.5,63,612/- by not paying the tax. It has
been also denied that the petitioner had obtained “No Objection
Certificate” from the respondents in terms of Section 48 of the Motors
Vehicle Act, 1988 and the rules contained therein. It has been further
stated at paragraph 11 that the District Transport Office, Deoghar never
received any letter/representation for obtaining “No Objection
Certificate” neither from the petitioner nor from the District Transport
Officer, Banka, Bihar. It has also been stated that the petitioner very
well knew that the respondent – District Transport Office, Deoghar will
not issue the NOC until and unless the petitioner clears all the dues of
tax amount and clears the hypothecation terms and conditions by Tata
Motors Finance Ltd. The petitioner created forged and fabricated
documents in District Transport Office at Banka, Bihar, which cannot
be accepted in the eyes of law.
10. When the petitioner did not pay the tax amount of the said vehicle
for the period from 23.10.2009 to 22.07.2019, a Certificate Proceeding
vide certificate case no.31/2019-2020 under Bihar and Orisa Public
Demands Recovery Act, 1914 was initiated against the petitioner for
recovery of public demand of Rs.5,63,612/- along with the interest.
Thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner and when the petitioner
did not appear nor objected to the proceedings, then a notice was issued
in the local newspaper Prabhat Khabhar, Deoghar on 29.08.2019 and
prior to this one more time it was issued in the local newspaper. It has
been stated that after following the due procedure a warrant of arrest
was issued.
11. As per the 2nd counter-affidavit dated 25.11.2024, which was
filed by the respondent no.1, it has been asserted that in terms of Section
3 (2) of the aforesaid Act of 1914, “Certificate Holder” means a
4
government or person in whose favour a certificate has been filed under
the Act and includes any person whose name is substituted or added as
creditor by the Certificate Officer. “Certificate Officer” has been
defined under Section 3 (3) of the Act of 1914 which means a Collector,
Sub-Divisional Officer, and any officer appointed by a Collector, with
the sanction of the Commissioner, to perform the functions of
Certificate Officer. A reference has also been made to Section 4 of the
Act of 1914 to say that when the Certificate Officer is satisfied that any
public demand is payable to the Collector is due, he may sign a
certificate in a prescribed form and shall cause the certificate to be filed
in his office. As per Section 12, Certificate filed under section 4 or 6
may be executed by the Certificate Officer in whose office the original
certificate is filed or the Certificate Officer to whom a copy of the
certificate is sent for execution under section 13 (1). Along with the said
counter affidavit, an order contained in memo no.143 dated 05.10.2018
issued by the Commissioner under Section 3 (3) of the aforesaid Act of
1914 has been annexed which inter alia notifies Sri Philbius Barla, the
District Transport Officer, Deoghar as the certificate officer for
Deoghar area. It has been asserted that appointment of certificate officer
at district level is completely a matter related to district, and department
of transport is not related to this and that it is completely the authority
of the District Collector to appoint certificate officers after obtaining
the sanction of the Divisional Commissioner.
Rejoinder to the counter-affidavit dated 18.01.2020
12. A rejoinder has been filed to the aforesaid counter affidavit
denying the allegations and it has been stated that the vehicle has been
registered at Banka, Bihar with new address. In the rejoinder to counter
affidavit, it has been further stated that as per the provisions of Section
7 of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands and Recovery Act, 1914
(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1914), notice has to be served to
the certificate debtor in the prescribed manner but the respondents have
not annexed a copy of the notice to demonstrate this fact. It has also
been stated that the petitioner had appeared on 14.10.2019 and
submitted that the vehicle has been shifted much earlier and therefore
5
the question of payment of tax to District Transport Office, Deoghar did
not arise. It has also been asserted that the present case is not a case of
new registration, rather it is a case regarding the present address which
was shifted to Banka, Bihar and that the petitioner is not supposed to
pay taxes at two different States for a single vehicle.
Findings
13. Upon perusal of the certificate of registration filed by the
petitioner as contained in Annexure – 1 to the writ petition, it is apparent
that the concerned vehicle having registration no. JH 15 D 6131 in the
State of Jharkhand taxes was paid up to 22.10.2009 and registration was
valid up to 22.07.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year
2009, the address of the petitioner was shifted and the vehicle was
registered with the State of Bihar as bearing registration no. BR 51 9105
and they have been paying taxes in the State of Bihar even for the period
during which registration was valid in the State of Jharkhand i.e.
22.07.2011. Thus, the vehicle had two valid registrations numbers in
connection with the same vehicle at least for a period between
02.09.2009 till 22.07.2011 one in the State of Jharkhand being JH 15 D
6131 and another in the State of Bihar bearing registration no. BR 51
9105. The petitioner has claimed transfer of registration from Jharkhand
to Bihar after completing the procedure as per section 48 and 49 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as letters seeking no objection was sent by
District Transport Office, Banka to which the District Transport Office ,
Deoghar did not respond and on the other hand the respondents are
alleging that there was no such communication from District Transport
Office, Banka and consequently there was no transfer as claimed by the
petitioner, rather, it was a case of fresh registration at Banka without
taking ‘no objection certificate’ from the District Transport Office,
Deoghar. However, aforesaid fact, allegation and counter allegation
have emerged only in the writ proceedings as the petitioner had not
participated in the certificate proceedings and claims that no notice was
served under Section 7 of the Act of 1914 so as to enable the petitioner
to file objection under Section 9 of the Act of 1914. It is also the case
of the petitioner that upon coming to know about the aforesaid
6
certificate case where warrant was issued through newspaper, a
representation was filed bringing on record the aforesaid fact about
transfer of vehicle and denying the liability but no relief was granted
which occasioned filing of this writ petition. The filing of representation
is admitted in the counter affidavit, but it has been stated that the
representation was never pressed by the counsel for the petitioner who
had filed vakalatnama before the certificate officer.
14. Before proceeding further, the relevant provisions of Bihar and
Orissa Public Demands and Recovery Act, 1914 and the rules framed
thereunder are quoted as under:
3. Definitions. – In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in
the subject or context –
(1) “certificate debtor” means the person named as debtor in a
certificate filed under this Act and includes any person whose
name is substituted or added as debtor by the Certificate Officer;
(2) “Certificate Holder” means the Government or person in
whose favour a certificate has been filed under this Act, and
includes any person whose name is substituted or added as
creditor by the Certificate Officer.
(3) “Certificate-Officer” means a Collector, a Sub-Divisional
Officer, and any officer appointed by a Collector, with the sanction
of the Commissioner, to perform the functions of a Certificate
Officer;
(6) “Public Demand” means any arrear or money mentioned or
referred to in Schedule I, and includes any interest which may, by
law, be chargeable thereon upto the date on which a certificate is
signed under Part II;
4. Filing of certificate for public demand payable to Collector. –
When the Certificate Officer is satisfied that any public demand
payable to the Collector is due, he may sign a certificate in the
prescribed form, stating that the demand is due and shall cause
the certificate to be filed in his office.
5. Requisition for certificate in other cases. –
(1) When any public demand payable to any person other than the
Collector is due such person may send to the Certificate Officer a
written requisition in the prescribed form:………………
6. Filing of certificate on requisition. – On receipt of any such
requisition the Certificate Officer, if he is satisfied that the demand
is recoverable and that recovery by suit is not barred by law, may
sign a certificate, in the prescribed form, stating that the demand
is due and shall include in the certificate the fee if any paid under
Section 5, sub-section (2); and shall cause the certificate to be filed
in his office.
15. The aforesaid provisions reveal that when dues are payable to the
Collector, the proceedings in terms of section 4 are to be followed and
7
when the dues are payable to any person other than the Collector, the
procedure as per section 5 and 6 are to be followed. It is not in dispute
during the course of arguments that dues with respect to taxes payable
on vehicles are recoverable in terms of section 4 of the Act of 1914.
Section 65 of the Act of 1914 provides that the Limitation Act, 1963 is
applicable to the certificate proceedings to the extent mentioned therein
as if the certificate filed were decree of the civil court. As per section
64 of the aforesaid Act, the power under the Act of 1914 is in addition
to and not in derogation to other modes of recovery of any due, debt or
demand. As per section 66 of the Act of 1914, the certificate officer is
deemed to be a court and is deemed to be a civil proceeding and as per
section 58, the officers under the Act have power of civil court for the
purposes of receiving evidence, administering oaths, enforcing the
attendance of the witnesses and compelling production of documents
and all officers are subject to supervision and control of the Collector.
16. The term “Certificate-Officer” has been defined to mean a
Collector, a Sub-Divisional Officer, and any officer appointed by a
Collector, with the sanction of the Commissioner, to perform the
functions of a Certificate Officer. In the present case, the District
Transport Officer, Deoghar has signed the certificate showing himself
to be the certificate holder as the dues are relating to tax on vehicle and
he is also the certificate officer as appointed by the Commissioner in
terms of the section 3 (3) of the Act of 1914. Admittedly, the dues
relating to the vehicle tax are ultimately payable to the account of the
collector.
17. Section 7 of the Act of 1914 provides that when a certificate is
filed in the office of a Certificate Officer under Section 4 or Section 6,
he shall cause to be served upon the certificate-debtor, in the prescribed
manner, a notice in the prescribed form and a copy of the certificate. As
per section 9, the certificate debtor may within thirty days from the
service of the notice required by Section 7, or where the notice has not
been duly served, then within thirty days from the execution of any
process for enforcing the certificate, present a petition in the prescribed
form signed and verified in the prescribed manner, denying his liability,
8
in whole or in part. As per section 10, the Certificate Officer shall hear
the petition, take evidence (if necessary) and determine whether the
certificate-debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount for
which the certificate was signed; and may set aside, modify or vary the
certificate and in case the Certificate Officer is not the Collector, and
considers that the petition involves a bona fide claim of right to
property, he shall refer the petition to the Collector for orders, and the
Collector, if he is satisfied that a bona fide claim of right to property is
involved, shall make an order cancelling the certificate. As per section
11, the Certificate Officer may at any time amend a certificate by the
addition, omission or substitution of the name of any certificate-holder
or certificate-debtor or by the alteration of the amount claimed therein
subject to the law of limitation and when any such amendment is made
a fresh notice and copy shall be issued as provided in Section 7. The
disposal of objection filed under section 9 is subject to appeal and
revision and there is also a provision for filing a suit to have the
certificate cancelled or modified to the extent and in the manner
prescribed under section 43 to 46 of the Act of 1914.
18. The point to be considered is whether objection to the certificate
proceedings in terms of section 9 can be decided by District Transport
Officer, Deoghar who is the person responsible to quantify the dues
and is the certificate holder and is also the certificate officer as
notified. The crux of the argument of the petitioner is that in case such
a procedure is adopted, whether it would be against the principles of
natural justice and fair play as the certificate officer would be the
deciding the objection himself with respect to the certificate signed by
him and violate the principle that ‘no man can be a judge in his own
cause’.
19. In this respect, it would be useful to refer to the judgment passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of reported in (2004) 11 SCC
625 (Delhi Financial Corporation and Anr. Vs. Rajiv Anand and
Ors.) wherein the matter relating to appointment the Managing Director
of the Financial Corporation as the authority under section 32 G of State
Financial Corporation Act, 1951 for issuing certificate relating to
9
recovery of due to the financial corporation as arrear of land revenue
was under challenge on the ground that ‘no man can be a judge in his
own cause’, it has been held in para 14 that mere appointment of an
officer to issue the certificate does not attract the doctrine unless it is
shown that the person concerned was biased or was personally
interested or personally acted in the matter concerned or has already
taken a decision one way or the other and will be interested in
supporting the decision. Paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgement is
quoted as under:
“14. Thus, the authorities disclose that mere appointment of an officer of
the corporation does not by itself bring into play the doctrine that “no man
can be a judge in his own cause”. For that doctrine to come into play it
must be shown that the officer concerned has a personal bias or a personal
interest or has personally acted in the matter concerned and/or has
already taken a decision one way or the other which he may be interested
in supporting. This being the law it will have to be held that the decision
of the Delhi High Court is erroneous and cannot be sustained and the view
taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is correct. It will, therefore,
have to be held that Managing Director of a financial corporation can be
appointed as an authority under Section 32-G of the Act.”
Further, the matter in the said case was only relating to issuance of
certificate and the amount was to be recovered through a proceeding by
the Collector in terms of section 32-G of the State Financial Corporation
Act, 1951.
20. This Court finds that under the Act of 1914 with which we are
concerned, the certificate officer signing the certificate has to certify
that the recovery of certificate amount is not barred by any law and in
the present case also, the certificate officer, who is also the certificate
holder has certified in the prescribed form that the recovery is not barred
by any law. This Court is of the considered view that there may be two
kinds of objection before the certificate officer, one relating to
calculation error / payments already made and not accounted for/rate of
interest charged etc. and second which touches upon the recovery is
not barred by any law which may include points relating to limitation,
vicarious liability/liability from legal heirs, jurisdiction etc. which
questions the correctness of the certification made by the certificate
officer that ‘the recovery is not barred by any law’ and the certificate
officer may be interested in defending his certification so made.
10
21. This Court is of the considered view that the certificate
proceedings being in the nature of execution proceedings, the objection
of the nature of the first category can certainly be taken care of by the
certificate officer himself by referring to the accounts and calculation
maintained by the department and amend the certificate accordingly.
22. So far as the objections with respect to the second category are
concerned, the certificate officer may find himself legally bound or be
interested in defending his certification that ‘the recovery is not barred
by any law’, and there is strong likelihood of a reasonable apprehension
in the mind of the certificate debtor that the certificate officer may not
question his own certification, even if any objection is filed, or may be
biased while deciding such issues. Further, such issues may also require
adducing evidence/calling for documents etc. This Court is of the
considered view that the objections with regard to the second category
is required to be decided by a neutral person failing which disposal of
such objection will be against the principle of law that ‘no man can be
a judge in his own cause’ and also the principle of law that ‘justice
should not only be done but should be seen to have been done.’
23. This Court also finds that section 13 of the Act of 1914 and the
Rule 10 and 11 of the rules also contemplates that the certificate officer
may transfer the proceedings for execution/disposal of objection under
section 9 by another officer.
12. Who may execute certificate. – A certificate filed under Section
4 or Section 6 may be executed by-
(a) the Certificate Officer in whose office the original certificate
is filed or
(b) the Certificate Officer to whom a copy of the certificate is sent
for execution under Section 13 sub-section (1).
13. Transmission of certificate to another Certificate Officer for
execution. –
(1) A Certificate Officer in whose office a certificate is filed may
send a copy thereof, for execution, to any other Certificate Officer
in the same district or to the Collector of any other district.
(2) When a copy of a certificate is sent to any such officer, he shall
cause it to be filed in his office, and thereupon the provisions of
Section 8 with respect to certificates filed in the office of a
Certificate Officer shall apply as if such copy were an original
certificate:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to serve a second notice
and copy under Section 7.
11
Rule 10 and 11
Petitions under section 9 denying liabilityRule 10. Signature and verification of petition denying liability.
– (1) Every petition filed under Section 9, denying liability shall
be signed and verified at the foot by the certificate-debtor or by
some other person on his behalf who is proved to the satisfaction
of the Certificate Officer to be acquainted with the facts of the
case.
(2) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and
shall state the date on which it is signed.
11. Transfer of such petitions. (1) The Certificate Officer may,
subject to any general or special order of the Collector transfer to
any Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector subordinate to the
Collector any petition filed under Section 9 and such Assistant
Collector or Deputy Collector shall hear and determine such
petition accordingly:
Provided that the Collector may re-transfer any petition so
transferred and order that it be heard and determined by the
Certificate Officer.
(2) The provisions of Section 10 shall be applicable to any
Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector to whom any such petition
has been transferred under sub-rule (1).
24. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, this Court holds
that a certificate holder can also be a certificate officer if so notified in
terms of the Act of 1914 for expeditious recovery of dues and proceed
to recover the dues if no objection is raised by the certificate debtor or
the objections are of the first category as mentioned above. However, if
the objection falls under the second category, the objection has to be
decided by another certificate officer. The point formulated is answered
accordingly.
25. The records of this case reveal that the notice under section 7 of
the Act of 1914 was not served physically upon the petitioner and upon
receipt of knowledge regarding paper publication, the petitioner filed
objection in the shape of representation but as per the case of the
respondents, the same was not considered as it was not pressed by the
counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner before the
District Transport Officer-cum-certificate officer, Deoghar.
26. Considering the nature of objection, this Court is of the
considered view that the objection is not with regard to calculation etc.
but is with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Transport Officer-
12
cum-certificate officer, Deoghar to raise the demand and touches upon
the certification by the District Transport Officer-cum-certificate
officer, Deoghar that ‘the recovery is not barred by any law’. In view of
the aforesaid pronouncement, the objection is required to be decided by
an officer other than the District Transport Officer-cum-certificate
officer, Deoghar, who is also the certificate holder. This Court also finds
that the District Transport Officer, Banka (Bihar) is not a party before
this Court and disputed questions with regard to registration of the
vehicle at Banka as mentioned above cannot be decided in this writ
proceedings.
27. This Court also finds that the objection has been raised by filing
a representation before the District Transport Officer-cum-Certificate
Officer, Deoghar but the objection has not been prepared in the
prescribed manner and this procedural error is required to be taken care
of by the petitioner so that the objections so raised are decided in
accordance with law.
28. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit the objection
raised in the representation in the prescribed manner and file the same
before the District Transport Officer-cum-certificate officer, Deoghar
within a period of three weeks from today.
Upon filing of the objection as aforesaid, the District Transport
Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Deoghar is directed to transmit the
records within a period of one week thereafter to the Collector of the
District of Deoghar for disposal of the objection either himself or by
any other Certificate Officer.
The necessary decision with regard to the Certificate Officer who
has to decide the objection be taken by the Collector within a period
of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the records from the office of the
District Transport Officer-cum-certificate officer, Deoghar.
The collector/the certificate officer who is assigned the task of
disposal of objection shall do the needful in accordance with the law
after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and also to the District
Transport Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Deoghar and final order be
13
passed within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the
records.
29. In order to enable the petitioner to participate in the proceedings,
the order directing issuance of warrant of arrest is set- aside.
30. Petitioner to cooperate with expeditious disposal of the
proceedings, furnish self-attested copy of Aadhar card along with the
objection to be filed and also the mobile number / e-mail to be
mentioned in the objection itself. The various orders including the
intimation regarding transmission and receipt of the records is directed
to be duly intimated to the petitioner through mobile / e-mail.
31. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
32. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit/Saurav/AFR
14