Mridula Mishra, J.

1. Petitioner No. 1, M/s Lal Chand Panna Lal is a firm and petitioner No. 2 is its Proprietor, petitioner No. 1 had applied for allotment of Shop-cum-Godown before Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Market Committee"). The shop-cum-Godown No. 3 was allotted on monthly rental of Rs. 100 per month to the petitioner in campus of the Market Committee on 10.5.1986. The petitioner Came in possession over the allotted shop-cum-Godown. The rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 150.00.

2. Petitioners case is that due to some disturbance and criminal activities it could not carry out its business properly and due to this rent of the allotted shop remained due for some period. The petitioner No. 2 filed an application before the Secretary, Market Committee for accepting due rent and through cheque No. 943792 dated 4.9.1990 payment was made. This payment was accepted and duly communicated by the Secretary, Market Committee to the Committee and a certificate was also issued in this regard. Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter he continued to deposit up to date monthly rent upto March, 1992 and receipts were duly granted by the Market Committee. The Market Committee was not maintaining the Shop-cum-godown properly. Inspite of several complaints made by tee petitioners no action was taken by the respondents for repair/renovation of Godown-cum-shop. As a result the petitioners closed the shop and gave information to the Secretary, Market Committee by letter dated 28.11.1997 that owing to dilapidated condition of the said shop the shop is being closed. The petitioner also made a prayer for allotment of some other workable place and small shop fromwhere he could do his business, till the allotted shop is repaired. Though petitioner was allotted small shop No. 5 in the market yard on monthly rental of Rs. 96.00. But, petitioners case is that then the allotment reminded on paper, in fact, possession was never handed over to him and he could never do his business from the small shop No. 5.

3. Petitioners further case is that, without any notice, the Secretary, Market Committee, filed requisition under Sec. 5 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act for realisation of arrears of monthly rent for the Godown allotted to the petitioners for the period 10.5.1986 to November, 1997. The amount to be realised was Rs. 54057.00. The Certificate Case No. 3/03-04 was registered and notice u/s. 7 of the P.D.R. Act was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed his objection under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act, challenging the maintainability of the Certificate Proceeding. On the ground that dues on account of non-payment of monthly rental for Shop-cum-Godown having not been mentioned in Schedule-I of the P.D.R. Act, and there being no such agreement in this regard in between the petitioners and the Market Committee, dues can not be realised as public demand. Entire proceeding is without Jurisdiction, as the dues is not the public demand under Sec. 3(6) of P.D.R. Act. Another objection which was raised by the petitioner is that under Section 17 of the Agricultural Produce Market Act, Market Committee is a Body Corporate and not the State. Any dues of Market Committee can not be recovered as Governmental dues. Hence the period of limitation is very much applicable against any money claimed in favour of Market Committee. On perusal of certificate it is apparent that period for which monthly rental was due has purposely not been mentioned, as it was barred by limitation. The Certificate Officer without considering it has initiated certificate proceeding. The requisition of Market Committee should have been in Form-II and the period for which the amount is due should have been mentioned in the requisition, as it is mandatory. The requisition as well as certificate being defective, Certificate proceeding was not maintainable.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed on beh