Nagendra Prasad Singh, J.

1. The petitioner in this writ application has questioned the validity of a certificate proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During the pendency of aforesaid certificate case, the petitioner was taken into custody, perhaps, in purported exercise of the power, conferred on the Certificate Officer by Sec.38 read with Sec. 40 of the said Act. According to the petitioner, his detention is without any authority in law.

2. It appears that in the district of Nawadah there is a Bhadauni Hat which is being settled from time to time by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder. For the year 1975-76 a public auction was held on 17-3-1975 in which the petitioner was the highest bidder, and as such, his bid for Rs. 50100.00 was accepted by the Anchal Adhikari, who was holding the bid. The petitioner deposited the security money and came in possession of the said Hat. By 2-8-1975 the petitioner had deposited Rs. 36,900.00 and during this period he was collecting the tolls. It is an admitted position that no deed of lease, as contemplated by the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951 was executed by the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not deposit the balance of the bid amount, and, as such, a requisition was filed by the Anchal Adhikari before the respondent Certificate Officer for realisation of the balance amount of Rs. 13,200.00 along with the interest.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid requisition, the aforesaid case was registered and notice thereof was issued to the petitioner. On 14-2-1979, on a prayer being made on behalf of the Certificate Holder, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be detained in civil prison. On 17-3-1979, the Certificate Officer passed an order for issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner, in execution whereof the petitioner was taken in custody on 24-6-1979. Thereafter, the present writ application was filed. At the time of admission itself, a Bench of this Court directed release of the petitioner on bail on the condition that he deposits fifty percent of the amount due within ten days from the date of his release. It is said that pursuant to that order the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 9455/-.

4. Mr. Krishna Ballabh Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has challenged the jurisdiction of the Certificate Officer to initiate a proceeding under the provisions of the Act for realisation of the dues aforesaid on the ground that the said amount cannot be held to be a public demand within the meaning of Sec.3(6) read with Schedule I of the Act. Sec.3(6) defines public demand to mean any arrear of money mentioned or referred to in Schedule I and includes any interest which may be chargeable thereon. Schedule I enumerates under different heads what shall be deemed to be public demand within the meaning of the said Act. Clause 7 and Clause 9 of the said Schedule I, which are relevant for the present case, are as follows:

1. Any demand payable to the Collector by a person holding any interest in land, pasturage, forest-rights, fisheries or the like, whether such interest is or is not transferable, when such demand is a condition of the use and enjoyment of such land, pasturage, forest rights, fisheries or other things.

9. Any money payable to a servant of the Government or any local authority, in respect of which the person liable to pay the same has agreed, by a written instrument, that it shall be recoverable as a public demand.

If the amount which was payable by the petitioner in connection with the settlement of the aforesaid Hat is not covered by Clauses 7 and 9 aforesaid, then it is not disputed that it is not covered under any other clauses of the said Schedule. As such, I propose to examine whether the amount in question can b