Aftab Alam, J.

1. Heard Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma, Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner had taken an advance for construction of a RCC road bridge. It is undeniable that he did not complete the construction within the stipulated time. In the Ekrarnama signed by him there was a stipulation that on failure to complete the work, he would be liable to refund the amount taken as advance, failing which the concerned authority would take legal steps for the realisation of the dues.

3. It was in those circumstances that a proceeding under the Public Demands Recovery . Act was initiated against the petitioner in Certificate Case No. 4/2001-2002 before the Sub-Divisional Certificate Officer, Phulparas.

4. As the petitioner did not make payment of the certificate amount he was sent to jail on 27.1.2002 from where he was finally released on 28.8.2002.

5. Mr. Verma submitted that the realisation of the money advanced to the petitioner for construction of the bridge did not come within the meaning of Public Demands and, therefore, the entire proceeding against the petitioner was without jurisdiction.

6. I am unable to accept the submission. Sub-sec. (6) of sec. 3 of the Bihar an