ORDER :

The question involved for our consideration in this petition which arises out of judgment and order dated 24.7.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, inter alia, is the proper interpretation of Section 3(1) (d) vis-a vis Section 4(2)(b) of the U.P. Public Money(Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972.

2. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, inter alia, on the premise that the respondent-Corporation was entitled to proceed against the petitioner, who was a guarantor, stating as under:

"The petitioner has taken loan from U.P. Financial Corporation, Agra. The same has not been paid to the Corporation, therefore, recovery has been issued against the petitioner as well as the guarantor. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that no recovery against the petitioner can be issued, as the petitioner is only guarantor. Without proceeding for recovery against the borrower Sri Raj Kumar Singh for the amount, no recovery can be issued against the guarantor. The submission made by the petitioner has got no force as it has been settled that the recovery can be proceeded simultaneously from