JUDGMENT :

MADHURESH PRASAD, J.

1. By this writ application, the petitioner has sought quashing of the entire proceedings arising out of Certificate Case No. 3 of 2021-2022, including the notice dated 14-07-2021 issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner has also sought a direction restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the Certificate Proceedings.

2. It is submitted by Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 13,53,362/- which is sought to be recovered, as a ‘public demand’ within the meaning of Section 3(6) of the Act, is not a public demand.

3. In view of the said submission, it is considered useful by this Court to reproduce Section 3(6) of the Act which defines public demand:

“3(6) “Public demand” means any arrear or money mentioned or referred to in Schedule I and includes any interest which may, by law, be chargeable thereon upto the date on which a certificate is signed under Part II.”

4. In view of the reference to Schedule I in the definition of “Public demand” Schedule I also requires to be considered. Schedule I of the Act enumerates the circumstances in which any arrear of revenue which remains due may come within “Public demand.” The petitioner’s counsel has laid emphasis on Clause 9 of Schedule I which reads as follows:

“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.”

5. The submission, therefore, is that unless an agreement by written instrument authorizing recovery of any money by resort to the Act, the Certificate Officer, as in the instant case, would have no jurisdiction and the proceeding, before the Certificate Officer, in the Certificate Case No. 3 of 2021-22, impugned in the instant writ petition, is without jurisdiction.

6. In support of this submission, he has submitted that Clause-32 of General Conditions of Contract (for short ‘GCC’) regarding defect liability period and routine maintenance of roads construction/upgradation under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (‘PMGSY’ for short) for five years could be applied only after the works were completed. In the instant case, the work of road was not completed and the quantification of defect liability sought to be recovered as a public demand under Clause 53.1(ii) of the Standard Bidding Document (‘SBD’ for short) is thus not a public demand within the meaning of Section 3(6) of the Act. Institution of Certificate Proceedings is, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. It is, however, not in dispute that the Contract contains an agreement in Clause 53.1(ii) of the SBD for PMGSY that money payable which remains un-recovered shall be recoverable as a public demand.

7. Substance of the submission is that the conditions for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue/public demand are not satisfied in terms of Clause 53.1(ii).

8. Since the conditions under Contract for resorting to the provisions of the Act were not fulfilled, the Certificate Proceedings are without jurisdiction, he would contend.

9. On a query made by this Court, as to what prevents the petitioner from filing his objection under Section 9 of the Act, raising the issue that the amount has not become recoverable in terms of the Contract, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Certificate has already been filed with the Certificate Officer. He has placed Section 6 of the Act, which, in view of the submissions, would be useful to reproduce, and reads as follows:

“6. Filling of certificate on requisition - On receipt of any such requisition the Certificate Officer, if he is satisfied that the demand is recoverable and that recovery by suit is not barred by law, may sign a certificate, in the prescribed form, stating that the demand is due and shall include in the c