CHAUDHARY SIA SARAN SINHA, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioner Nirod Baran Banerjee has prayed for the quashing of Annexures 2 to 5 to this application in the following circumstances. A certificate proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for recovery of royalty amounting to Rs. 1,36,135.32. The main contention of Shri Sreenath Singh, in spite of several pleas being taken in the application, is that for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the initiation of the certificate proceeding in Certificate Case No. 15 of 1976-77 against the petitioner is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and as such the decisions to the contrary, as evidenced by Annexures-2 to 5 is unsupportable and liable to be quashed in this writ application. This contention was refuted by Shri Chunni Lal, learned counsel for the State.

2. Public Demand as defined in Sec. 3(6) of the Act refers to Sch.I to the Act. It contains several items. It is undisputed that Item No. 3 of the said schedule covers the instant case. Item No. 3 states as follows :-

"Any money which is declared by any law for the time being in force to be recoverable coverable or realisable as an arrear of revenue or land-revenue, or by the process authorised for the recovery of arrears of revenue or of the public revenue or of the Government revenue."

Though the Mining Department is one of the departments of the Government of Bihar it is further undisputed that the amount in question, the subject matter of the instant certificate proceeding, was payable to the District Mining Officer. According to Sec.26 (1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 any royalty as involved in the instant case is to be recovered in the manner as an arrear of land revenue. The distinction, between the terms recoverable or realisable as an arrear of revenue and by the process authorised for the recovery of the arrear of revenue or the public revenue or the Government revenue as used in Item No. 3 of Schedule I has also to be noted. The order passed under Sec. 4 of the Act by the certificate officer has the force of a decree. The Act rather provides a summary way for the realisation of the certificate dues. It may be emphasised that the Act is an extremely stringent one and the summary manner of recovery of the certificate dues necessitates rigid compliance with the formalities prescribed by the Legislature in this respect. Obviously, therefore, non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act or the Rules or non-observance of the formalities envisaged will result in the invalidation of the action taken. The initiation of a certificate proceeding as contemplated in the Act can take the place in two ways, one to be found in Sec. 4 read with Form No. I and the other in Sec. 5 read with Form No. II. The contention of Sri Sreenath Singh was that the form filled in the instant case, though it purported to be in Form No. I was, in fact, not so. His further submission was that even if Sec. 5 of the Act be held to be applicable in the instant case, the Form filled in the instant case fell far short of the requirements as prescribed by law. The stand taken by Shri Chunni Lal, learned counsel for the State, however, was that the Form in question was in conformity with the requirements as envisaged in Sec. 4 and the details of Form No. I were also there, it not being his submission before this court that the Form in question fulfilled the. requirement of Sec. 5 or Form No. II.

3. It may be useful to refer to the two verifications (Tashdik) and one certificate appended to the Form in question. They run as follows:

Mian Iski Ru Se Tasdik Karta Hun Ki Uper Bataye Hue Rs. 1,36,135.32 Rupaye Upar Bataye Hue C. Dr Se Upar Bataye Hue C. Mr. Ka Pawna Hai. (Jo Certificate Par Dafe 5 Ka Bik Bheji Hui Darkhast Par Daskhat Kiya Gaya Hai To Yah Jod do----)

Sd. Illegible