Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act Doesn't Permit Belated Recovery From Legal Heirs After Years Of Inaction: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held that Section 52 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, does not confer an unrestricted or perpetual power upon the State to initiate recovery proceedings against the legal heirs of a deceased certificate debtor after years of unexplained inaction. The Court held that such proceedings must be pursued strictly in accordance with law and within a reasonable period.

A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Ranjan Kumar Jha dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation challenging a Single Judge's order quashing recovery proceedings initiated against the legal heirs of a deceased certificate debtor.

The dispute arose out of a certificate proceeding initiated in 2013 against the husband of the first writ petitioner, who had been appointed as an Incharge Purchase Centre for procurement of paddy. It was alleged that there was a shortage of 719.36 quintals of paddy, resulting in initiation of recovery proceedings.

During the pendency of the certificate proceeding, the original certificate debtor died on October 29, 2014. Nearly eight years later, in 2022, the authorities sought to recover ₹27.04 lakh from his legal heirs, prompting them to challenge the action before the High Court. The Corporation contended that Section 52 of the 1914 Act permitted continuation of the certificate proceeding against the legal representatives of the deceased debtor to the extent of the estate inherited by them.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the authorities had failed to take timely steps after the debtor's death and had sought recovery after an inordinate and unexplained delay.

The Division Bench observed that while Section 52 enables continuation of certificate proceedings against legal representatives, it does not create an independent personal liability against them. The Court held:

“The liability fastened upon the legal representatives is not personal but is expressly restricted to the extent of the estate inherited from the deceased. The provision, therefore, neither creates an independent liability against the legal heirs nor authorises the Certificate Officer to proceed against them dehors the procedure established by law.”

Rejecting the Corporation's reliance on Section 52, the Bench observed that the statutory power must be exercised within a reasonable period and cannot remain dormant indefinitely. It held:

“Section 52 cannot be construed as conferring an unfettered or perpetual authority upon the State to revive proceedings against the legal heirs after remaining inactive for years together.”

The Court further noted that the power to substitute parties under the Act is expressly made “subject to the law of limitation”, reflecting the legislative intent that such powers cannot be exercised without regard to delay.

The Bench observed that although the death of a certificate debtor does not automatically terminate pending proceedings, the authorities must act with diligence. In the present case, the original debtor died in October 2014, whereas recovery notices were issued to his legal heirs only in 2022 without any satisfactory explanation.

Holding that statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable period even where no specific limitation is prescribed, the Court concluded:

“Section 52 of the Act merely enables continuation of proceedings against the estate of a deceased certificate debtor; it cannot be interpreted as conferring an unrestricted or perpetual authority upon the State or its instrumentalities to proceed against legal heirs at any point of time irrespective of delay.”

Finding no error in the Single Judge's decision, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: The District Manager, Food and Civil Supplies Corporation v. Krishna Devi and Ors.

Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 662 of 2024 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4540 of 2023.

Appearance: Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh for the Appellant. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar for the Respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order