1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing a certificate proceeding including the requisitions as contained in annexs. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and also for quashing the order contained in annex. 8. The short facts leading to this applicacation are as follows:

2. Under an agreement dated November 24, 1970, the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 40,000 from the United Commercial Bank, Jogbani Branch, for the purpose of setting up an industry. The mill could not be properly and profitably run, but the petitioner made certain payments towards the loan between September 11, 1970, and July 21, 1971. He received legal notice dated April 15, 1975, for repayment of the entire dues from the bank. It appears that the bank sent a requisition under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on December 17, 1975, on the basis of which a Certificate Case No. 184/U. BaDk/75-76 was registered. This requisition was sent to the Certificate Officer, Purnea. As the jurisdiction over the case was that of the Certificate Officer, Araria, the requisition was transferred to Araria Court wherein again another written requisition addressed to the Certificate Officer, Araria, in Form I of Schdule 2 of the Rules was filed and another certificate case seems to have been registered bearing Certificate Case No. 184/U Bank/75-76

3. for the same dues. The petitioner was served with a notice and be filed certain objections challenging the authority of the bank to realise the loan in question under the provisions of the Act. Ultimately, it appears that the plants and machineries of the petitioners mill were attached and by an order dated November 18, 1976, it was directed to issue notice to effect auction sale of the attached properties. However, on an application made by the petitioner, the Certificate Officer heard the parties and by his order dated December 18, 1976, he rejected the objections of the petitioner. Some other steps seem to have been taken on behalf of the petitioner to which we are not concerned. Ultimately, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector which was registered as Certificate Revision Case No. 248 of 1977-78. The respondent-Collector by his order dated March 4, 1978, dismissed the petition with an observation that the petitioner should first deposit 40 per cent, of the dues and then come up in appeal when his objections could be properly taken into consideration. The main objections which were taken by the petitioner before the Collector were that the bank was required to pay court-fee in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act. The other objection was that the requisition should have been in Form 2 instead of Form 1. On the second question the learned Collector found in favour of the petitioner that the requisition should have been in Form 2 and not in Form 1. But on the first question the learned Collector found against the petitioner and held that the loans advanced by the bank after the nationalisation became public demands and were payable to the Government and, therefore, court fee was not necessary to be paid.

4. The records of this case were called for and after perusing the same, Mr. Bharuka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, did not pursue the question regarding the filing of the requisition in Form 1 or 2. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into that question.

5. Mr. Bharuka strongly submitted that the dues of a nationalised bank cannot become public demands and are not payable to the Collector and, therefore, the bank must pay court-fee before the certificate proceeding can proceed. Sec. 5 of the Act provides that when any public demand payable to any person other than the Collector is due, such person may send to the Certificate Officer a written requisition in the prescribed form. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 5 provides that in such cases court-fee shall h