Section 31 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 applies to State debts and the Court has the discretion to grant a protection order to an insolvent even if the debt is owed to the State.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision of an order made by a learned District Judge refusing to grant an insolvent a protection order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was adjudicated an insolvent. His only indebtedness was to the State in respect of Income-tax and the State were heard during the adjudication proceeding. Having been adjudged insolvent the petitioner was arrested as the State had taken certificate proceedings against him in respect of income-tax due.

( 3 ) THE petitioner then applied to the Court for protection under Section 31 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Before the learned Judge it was contended that Section 31 had no application to Crown debts. But the learned Judge was of opinion that the section was so framed as to coyer all debts whether due to the State or to private persons. The learned Judge however was of opinion that he should not make a protection order because even after discharge the petitioner would still be liable for this debt. It was on that ground that the learned Judge refused to make a protection order.

( 4 ) MR. Atul Gupta on behalf of the petitioner has contended that this was a case in which a protection order should have been made. He has contended that Section 31 is framed in the widest possible terms and must include State debts. Section 31 is in these terms:"1. Any insolvent in respect of whom an order of adjudication has been made may apply to the Court for protection, and the Court may on such application make an order for the protection of the insolvent from arrest or detention. 2. A protection order may apply either to all the debts of the debtor, or to any of them as the Court may think proper, and may commence and take effect at and for such time as the Court may direct; and may be revoked or renewed as the Court may think fit. 3. A protection order shall protect the insolvent from being arrested or detained in prison for any debt to which such order applies, and any insolvent arrested or detained contrary to the terms of such an order shall be entitled to his release: provided that no such order shall operate to prejudice the rights of any creditor in the event of such order being revoked or the adjudication annulled. 4. Any creditor shall be entitled to appear and oppose the grant of a protection order".

( 5 ) IT will be seen that a protection order may apply either to all the insolvent's debts or to some of them. It draws no distinction between classes of debts, that is debts due to the State or to Corporation or Municipalities or private persons. It appears to me that the Court below was right in holding that this section applies to debts due to the State.

( 6 ) MR. Meyer however on behalf of the Union of India contended that this section would not bind the State as the State is not bound by a statute unless the statute so provides. However it appears to me that Section 31 does not impose any obligation whatsoever on the State. Certain creditors are by law given a right in certain circumstances to have an unfortunate debtor imprisoned for failure to pay his debt. It is a form of execution recognised by the Code of Civil Procedure. The State can take advantage of these provisions and it appears to me that the fact that a protection order might be made is not an obligation imposed on the State. All that the section provides is that the rights of creditors to imprison a debtor may be curtailed if the debtor has been adjudicated insolvent. I do not think it can be said that the section imposes any obligation on the State. It does not require the State to do anything at all, it merely protects the insolvent from arrest in certain circumstances. That being so I think the Court is bound to hold that Section 31 applies to State debts.

( 7 ) NO special reason has been given why this unfortunate insolvent should be imprisoned. He has been declared an insolvent by a competent Court and all his property is now vested in the Official Receiver. Prima facie he has, no proper