Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Order Date: 09-10-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s Surbhi Industries, represented by Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan; Respondents – The State of Bihar (through the Chief Secretary), Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd (BSFC) represented by Mr. Shiv Kumar and M/s Shailendra Kr. Singh, along with the District Manager, BSFC, Sheohar.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil writ petition (Case No. 9820 of 2016, CNR No. BRHC010851922016) filed for multiple reliefs including setting aside Letter No. 6049 dated 17.05.2016, issuance of a miller licence, protection from coercive steps, and deletion of the petitioner’s name from a dues list.
  • Reliefs Sought: (i) Certiorari to quash the 2016 blanket order; (ii) Mandamus for miller licence; (iii) Mandamus to prevent disturbance of dues realization (Rs. 15,457 excess admitted); (iv) Mandamus to restrain coercive action; (v) Deletion of petitioner’s name from dues list; (vi) Any other appropriate relief.
  • Counsel Submissions: Respondents relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Pawapuri Rice Mills Vs. Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3777) and the High Court’s own decision in Ranjeet Kumar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 10379 of 2018, order dated 11.08.2026), arguing that the petitioner must pursue statutory remedies under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (PDR Act).
  • Petitioner’s Argument: Contended that the facts differ from Pawapuri Rice Mills and that the Supreme Court precedent should not apply.

Court’s Reasoning & Observations

  • The Court reiterated the ratio from Pawapuri Rice Mills: where an efficacious statutory remedy exists under the PDR Act, aggrieved parties should exhaust it before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
  • Noted that the petitioner raised procedural objections (defects in Form No. 1, non‑compliance with prescribed procedure, lack of proper enquiry, and question of recoverability as a public demand).
  • Acknowledged the petitioner’s reliance on an Arbitration Award dated 29.08.2019 and directed that the award may be placed before the competent Certificate Officer for consideration.
  • Emphasised that the Court will not examine the merits of the disputed questions or alleged procedural irregularities at this stage.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is disposed of in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Pawapuri Rice Mills judgment.
  • The petitioner is directed to file objections under Section 9 of the PDR Act, together with a copy of the Arbitration Award dated 29.08.2019 and any other necessary documents, within one month of receipt of this order.
  • The concerned Certificate Officer must entertain the objections, afford a hearing, and pass a reasoned order within three months of filing the appeal, with the delay in filing to be condoned.
  • No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pending the exercise of the statutory remedy.
  • The Court expressly refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims or counter‑claims; all substantive questions remain for the statutory authority.

Topics: Legal Remedy, Public Demand Recovery