@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S.J. Mokhopadhaya, J.@mdashIn both the cases, the common petitioners have challenged the orders both dated 7th August. 1999, passed by the
learned Certificate Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa in Certificate Case Nos. 16 and 17 (Excise)/ 78-79 respectively.
2. As the cases can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, claim and counter claim of the parties, except the
relevant one.
3. The certificate cases aforesaid were initiated under Bihar Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 on requisitions by the Assistant Commissioner of
Excise, Chaibasa for recovery of Excise dues against Laxmi Prasad Sao (since deceased).
4. On notice, said Laxmi Prasad Sao (since deceased) filed objection u/s 9 of the Aet and taken stand that apart from him, the business belonged
to M/s. Thakur Prasad Sao and Shiv Shankar Prasad Sao as partners.
5. Notices were issued to Thakur Prasad Sao and Shiv Shankar Prasad Sao, wherelnafter they were impleaded as parties in the certificate
proceedings.
6. Shiv Shankar Prasad Sao and another then moved before this Court in CWJC No. 587 of 1993 (R) which was disposed of by this court by
Judgment dated 19th August, 1998. By the said Judgment, while the Court upheld the order of addition of the aforesaid persons as parties to the
certificate case observed that the impleaded parties i.e. Shiv Shankar Prasad Sao and Thakur Prasad Sao may file their respective objections u/s 9
of the Act.
7. The grievance of the petitioners is that thereafter Certificate Cases, aforesaid, were taken up and vide impugned orders both dated 7th August,
1999, the Certificate Officer while impleaded the heirs of deceased Laxmi Prasad 5ao, in whose name the licence was issued, but deleted the
Respondent No. 4, Shiv Shankar Prasad and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, i.e. heirs of Late Thakur Prasad Sao, giving wrong reference of the
aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
8. It will be evident from the impugned orders both dated 7th August, 1999 that the Certificate Officer observed that the order dated 19th January,
1993 was quashed by the High Court and Shiv Shankar Prasad and heirs of Late Thakur Prasad Sao were not impleaded as parties which is
based on presumption, and is far from truth.
9. Notices were issued to Respondents Shiv Shankar Prasad (Respondent No. 4) and heirs of Late Thakur Prasad Sao (Respondent Nos. 5 and
6).
10. The counsel for the Respondent No. 4 accepts that the order was passed on 7th August on presumption but, according to him, Shiv Shankar
Prasad or heirs of Late Thakur Prasad Sao are not liable to pay any part of the certificate amount.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the impugned orders both dated 7th August, 1999, were passed in Certificate
Case Nos. 16 and 17 (Excise)/78-79, on wrong interpretation of the High Courts judgment and on wrong presumption, those orders are set aside.
12. The cases are remitted to the Certificate Officer, Sadar, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum for their determination on merit, taking into consideration
the objections filed by the parties, their argument and the evidences, as may be placed by them.
13. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of.
