Binod Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar

Binod Kumar Yadav vs State of Bihar

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Patna Decided Sep 28, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/127004

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/127004
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Aftab Alam, J.
Decided On: Sep 28, 2002
Case Number: C.W.J.C. No. 7890 of 2002
Subject: ;Banking
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - In the Ekrarnama signed by him there was a stipulation that on failure to complete the work, he would be liable to refund the amount taken as advance, failing which the concerned authority would take legal steps for the realisation of the dues. ' 7. I am, therefore, satisfied that the money advanced to the pet...

Key legal issue: ;Banking
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 - Sections 3(6)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Binod Kumar Yadav

Advocate Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma

Respondent

State of Bihar

Legal References

Acts: Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 - Sections 3(6)

Excerpt

- - in the ekrarnama signed by him there was a stipulation that on failure to complete the work, he would be liable to refund the amount taken as advance, failing which the concerned authority would take legal steps for the realisation of the dues. ' 7. i am, therefore, satisfied that the money advanced to the petitioner was clearly covered by the definition of public demand and the certificate case was rightly instituted for its recovery. his detention for the last one month was, therefore, clearly illegal and he was, therefore, entitled to compensation for illegal detention. 9. in this regard i would not like to and i would leave it to the petitioner to raise his claim for compensation before a suitable forum in a properly instituted proceeding......as the petitioner did not make payment of the certificate amount he was sent to jail on 27.1.2002 from where he was finally released on 28.8.2002.5. mr. verma submitted that the realisation of the money advanced to the petitioner for construction of the bridge did not come within the meaning of public demands and, therefore, the entire proceeding against the petitioner was without jurisdiction.6. i am unable to accept the submission. sub-section (6) of section 3 of the bihar and orissa public demands recovery act, defines 'public demand' as meaning any arrear or money mentioned or referred to in schedule i, and includes any interest which may, by law, be chargeable thereon upto the dale on which a certificate is signed under part ii.entry 8-a which was added in schedule i by bihar act, 20 of 1993 reads as follows:'8-a. any outstanding loans and advanced payable to state government or to a department or official of the state government by any body whatsoever.'7. i am, therefore, satisfied that the money advanced to the petitioner was clearly covered by the definition of public demand and the certificate case was rightly instituted for its recovery.8. mr. verma next submitted that under the provisions of the act the petitioner could be held in custody for a period not exceeding six months but in this case the petitioner was released from detention after seven months. his detention for the last one month was, therefore, clearly illegal and he was, therefore, entitled to compensation for illegal detention.9. in this regard i would not like to and i would leave it to the petitioner to raise his claim for compensation before a suitable forum in a properly instituted proceeding.10. no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. it is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

Aftab Alam, J.

1. Heard Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma, Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner had taken an advance for construction of a RCC road bridge. It is undeniable that he did not complete the construction within the stipulated time. In the Ekrarnama signed by him there was a stipulation that on failure to complete the work, he would be liable to refund the amount taken as advance, failing which the concerned authority would take legal steps for the realisation of the dues.

3. It was in those circumstances that a proceeding under the Public Demands Recovery . Act was initiated against the petitioner in Certificate Case No. 4/2001-2002 before the Sub-Divisional Certificate Officer, Phulparas.

4. As the petitioner did not make payment of the certificate amount he was sent to jail on 27.1.2002 from where he was finally released on 28.8.2002.

5. Mr. Verma submitted that the realisation of the money advanced to the petitioner for construction of the bridge did not come within the meaning of Public Demands and, therefore, the entire proceeding against the petitioner was without jurisdiction.

6. I am unable to accept the submission. Sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, defines 'public demand' as meaning any arrear or money mentioned or referred to in Schedule I, and includes any interest which may, by law, be chargeable thereon upto the dale on which a certificate is signed under Part II.

Entry 8-A which was added in Schedule I by Bihar Act, 20 of 1993 reads as follows:

'8-A. Any outstanding loans and advanced payable to State Government or to a Department or official of the State Government by any body whatsoever.'

7. I am, therefore, satisfied that the money advanced to the petitioner was clearly covered by the definition of Public demand and the Certificate case was rightly instituted for its recovery.

8. Mr. Verma next submitted that under the provisions of the Act the petitioner could be held in custody for a period not exceeding six months but in this case the petitioner was released from detention after seven months. His detention for the last one month was, therefore, clearly illegal and he was, therefore, entitled to compensation for illegal detention.

9. In this regard I would not like to and I would leave it to the petitioner to raise his claim for compensation before a suitable forum in a properly instituted proceeding.

10. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2002 Same Parties Binod Kumar Yadav vs State of Bihar Same Subject ;Banking Same Judge Aftab Alam, J. Acts & Sections Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 - Sections...

;Banking