Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.

1. Aggrieved of the notice issued under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act of 1952'), dated 12th March, 2003 and the order dated 10th September, 2007 for recovery decreetal amount along with interest @18% under the Act of 1952, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

"(i) the order dated 10.9 2007 (Ex.8) passed by the respondent No. 2 and the notice dated 12.3.2003 (Ex.4) may be declared to be illegal and set aside;

(ii) any other relief to which the petitioners are found entitled for may be granted to them;

(iii) the writ petition be allowed with costs."

2. Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that the State-respondents instituted a civil suit, which was decreed in their favour against one Shri Ganesh Narain Podar (since deceased) for an amount of Rs. 7,17,81,702,.30 (Rupees Seven Crores seventeen lacs eighty one thousand seven hundred two and paisa thirty only). On the death of judgment debtor, notices were issued to the petitioners as the successors of deceased.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. R.C. Joshi, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application asserted that Shri Ganesh Narain Podar died on 7th November, 2005 and the respondent-State the decree-holder, instituted execution proceedings before the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 23rd April, 2003. The proceedings were pending until institution of the present writ application. According to learned counsel no notices have been received by the petitioners of the execution proceedings. Late Shri Ganesh Narain Podar was the Chairman of Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills, Jaipur and the decreetal amount is with reference to a guarantee extended by the State-respondents to Jaipur Spinning and weaving Mills. For the Mill was brought under liquidation, its entire assets and properties were taken over by the Official Liquidator. A Company Petition No. 10/1980, is still pending in the reference.

4. Furthermore, the Bombay High Court adjudged late Shri Ganesh Narain Podar as an insolvent and all the estates and assets of late Shri Ganesh Narain Podar were vested in the Official Assignee of the Bombay High Court. The petitioners have not inherited any immovable or movable property from late Shri Ganesh Narain Podar. The fact that late Shri Ganesh Narain Podar was declared insolvent was also brought to the notice of the District Judge, Jaipur City' Jaipur, on 8th November, 1989.

5. Learned counsel further urged that the process instituted against the petitioners for recovery of the decreetal amount under the Act of 1952 through the District Collector (Recovery), Jaipur, is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Referring to the notice issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1952, dated 12th March, 2003, learned counsel would submit that decreetal amount, which is sought to be recovered under the Act of 1952, is the same decreetal amount that has been adjudicated upon in the civil proceedings as is reflected from the relevant column in the certificate of 'public demand' under Section 4 of the Act of 1952, detailing out the particulars of 'public demand' for which the certificate has been issued.

6. It is further contended that under Section 2 (5) of the Act of 1952 "public demand" means any arrear of money mentioned or referred to in the schedule to the Act of 1952 and includes any interest which may by law be chargeable thereon upto the date of signing of a certificate in respect thereof under Section 4 of the Act of 1952. Thus, the decree made by the civil court, on a civil suit, instituted by the State-respondents, cannot fall within the definition of "public demand." The petitioners are not within the ambit of the definition of 'defaulter' as defined under Section 2 (2) of the Act of 1952.

7. So also decree of a civil court, is not included in the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952, which contemplates