Radha Mohan Prasad, J.
1. As in all four writ applications a common question has been raised, with consent of the parties they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common Judgment.
2. In C.W.J.C. No. 288/92, 286/92 and 960/92 the petitioners have assailed the validity of the very initiation of the proceeding besides notice issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (for braivity as the Act') in Certificate Case No. 6-C.D. of 1977-78, Certificate Case No. 1 of C.P. of 1974-75 and 2 C.P. of 1974-74 and Certificate Case Nos. 1 C.C. of 1978-79, 6 C.C. of 1968-69, 5 C.C. of 1969-70, 16 C.C. of 1969-70, 2 C.C. of 1972-73, 4 C.C. of 1972-73, 47 C.C. of 1973-74, 2 C.C. of 1975-76, 1 C.C. of 1976-77, 2 C.C. of 1976-77, 5 C.C. 1976-77 and 7 C.C. of 1977-78 respectively, for realisation of the price of the cane supplied to the factory of the petitioning company on the ground that the requisition issued or certificates proceeding initiated against Bihar Sugar Works which is neither a legal person nor occupier of the company are not maintainable and action taken against the petitioners company on the basis of the said notice is wholly without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and malafide.
3. In C.W.J.C. No. 5003 of 1995, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the notice issued under Section 7 of the said Act, inter alia, on the ground that the dues of Central Excise for which requisition was sent in relation to the company, namely. Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. whereas notice has been issued to the petitioner in his individual capacity who is the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner is bad in law and fit to be quashed on this ground alone. In this regard, the learned Counsel has referred to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Sarla Devi v. State of Bihar reported in 1979 B.B.C.J. 213 (paragraph 5 & 7).
4. Although almost six years have elapsed since the writ petitions were admitted, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
5. In writ petitions, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 288/92, 286/92 and 960/92 the fact that requisition was given by the Cane Officer against Bihar Sugar Works as certificate debtor which is neither a company nor a legal person have been stated in paragraphs 17, 19 and 27 of the respective writ applications. This fact remains uncontroverted in absence of any counter-affidavit.
6.It has been submitted by Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the notice under Section 7 of the Act is to be given to the certificate debtor which is defined in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act. According to the said section, the person named as debtor in a certificate filed under the Act includes any person whose name is substituted or added as debtor by the Certificate Officer. Mr. Giri submitted that Section 43(1) of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred to as The Sugarcane Act') provides that 'the occupier of a factory shall make such agreements for the payment of price of Cane as may be prescribed.' Sub-section (2) provides that 'As soon as Cane is supplied to a factory the occupier of such factory shall be liable to pay the price of Cane so supplied.' 'Occupier' has been denied under Clause (1) of Section 2 of the said Sugarcane Act. According to the said definition 'occupier of a factory' means a person carrying on business of manufacturing sugar by vacuum-pan process in a factory and having the ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. It is, thus, submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., in fact, is the legal entity which carries on business of manufacturing sugar and has the ultimate control over the affairs of the factory and Bihar Sugar Works is not a legal person and has been given name just for the purpose of ^identifying the place of unit. Thus, according to Mr. Girl, the impugned notice issued in the name of Bihar Sugar Works and/or in the individual name of the Managing Director cannot be sustained in view of the settled law in the case of Sarla Devi v. State of Bihar (supra).
7. The learned Standing Counsel It has failed to show that the Bihar Sugar Works is a legal person which can sue and be sued for realisation of such debt.
8. I find substance in submission of Mr. Giri. In the absence of any dispute that the Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. is the legal person which can sue or be sued for realisation of such debts, in my opinion, the impugned notice issued in the name of Bihar Sugar Works and/or in the individual name of the Managing Director and the proceeding initiated against them cannot be sustained. In the case of Sarla Devi v. State of Bihar (supra) Division Bench of this Court held that the Directors of Shareholders cannot be individually proceeded with by issue of distress warrants against them. It was held that company is a legal person with its own rights and liabilities and that persons associated with the company are not the company. Accordingly, it was held that action to realise the dues under the claim can be taken against the assets of the company.
9. Under such circumstances, the proceeding initiated against the petitioners and notices Impugned in the writ petitioners are hereby quashed. However, this order shall not come in the way of the appropriate authority from making fresh requisition and consequently issuing fresh notices to the proper legal person in accordance with law for realisation of the debts in question and such legal person will be at liberty to raise all objections including with respect to maintainability of such proceedings.
10. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.