1. Heard.

2. The petitioner had opened a savings account with the respondent-Muzaffarpur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. The account was opened in the year 1976. The petitioner alleges close of account in that very year but the same is disputed. What is admitted by respondent-bank is that the last transaction that took place was in 1979. In the year 2004, the present certificate proceedings were initiated on the basis of a requisition made by the respondent-bank under the provisions of Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. On basis of the said requisition, a certificate was issued, both of which are annexed to the writ petition and Certificate Case No. 2803/ 2004-05 was thus registered before the Certificate Officer. The petitioner has come directly to this Court challenging the very initiation of the certificate proceeding on the ground that they are wholly without jurisdiction.

3. The respondent-bank has appeared and filed a counter affidavit.

4. The first objection raised by the respondent-bank is as to the maintainability of the writ petition and non-availing of alternative remedy. In my view, the plea of the respondent-bank is only to be noted for the purpose of rejection. It is well settled that the plea of alternative remedy is a bar created by discretion and not by rule. Secondly, the said bar does not apply where the parties act without jurisdiction. The law does not contemplate that first a party objecting to jurisdiction must submit to the jurisdiction suffer an order and then challenge the jurisdiction. This position in law is well settled and recognized. The objection is thus misconceived on the face of it.

5. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings basically on two grounds. Firstly, he submits that the respondent-Cooperative being a bank, the dues are covered by Entry 15 of Schedule I of Public Demand Recovery Act. Therefore, in absence of an agreement in writing having been produced, it cannot be said that it is a public demand and recoverable under the provisions of PDR Act. The second contention is that on the face of it, the last transaction being of the Year 1979, which resulted in the amount being over drawn, the same could be recovered within a period of three years by a Suit and beyond that period Money Suit itself would be barred and as such in terms of Section 6 of the Act, the Certificate Officer erred in law in assuming the jurisdiction in the matter and issuing a certificate for such a state claim of over 25 years old as the certificate proceedings were initiated only in 2004 for dues of 1979.

6. The respondent submits that the dues being sought to be recovered are not by virtue of Entry 15 of Schedule 1 to the Act but by virtue of Entry 3 of Schedule 1 of the Act. Secondly, it is submitted that no provision under the Co-operative Act makes the law of limitation applicable and if law of limitation is not made applicable to the Cooperative Bank then the dues could be recovered ad infinitum.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

8. So far as first contention with regard to absence of agreement is concerned, I am afraid the petitioner's contention is misconceived. Section 52 of the Bihar Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 clearly provides that any amount, that is found due from a member can be recovered as the public demand or arrears of land revenue. If we see Entry 3 of Schedule 1 to the Public Demand Recovery Act, which provides as to what natures of demand are public demand, we would find that any money which is recoverable as arrears of land revenue is a public demand, Thus, in my view, the amount sought to be recovered by the respondent-bank is recoverable as a public demand and it is not covered by Entry 15 of Schedule 1 which refers to Bank and institution of which Corporative Bank, which are beyond the control of the Government, is not included therein. Respondent-Bank thus, rightly has the auth