Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Rajhumal under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the State of Rajasthan, and the Collector of Churu praying for a writ or order prohibiting the Collector from realizing a certain gum of money from him under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act (No. V of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The case of the applicant was that he was an authorised ration dealer of food grains for Sujangarh town. In that connection, some criminal proceeding were started against him in 1952 with respect to wheat and juar worth Rs. 34.079/1/3, which it was alleged, he had taken away in collusion with a clerk of the Supplies Department. That case was still pending against him when he received a notice in August, 1954, under sec. 6 of the Act, for payment of Rs. 34,079/1/3. The applicants contention is that the amount is not a public demand which could be recovered under the Act, and that, at any rate, no requisition of the D.S.O. or other competent authority, as required by sec. 3 of the Act, was ever issued. It is further contended that the Collector did not comply with the provisions of sec. 4 relating to tiling of the certificate. Further, though a notice was issued under sec. 6, a copy of the certificate, as required by that section, was not sent to the applicant. The applicant, therefore, contends that there was no foundation for taking proceedings under the Act in view of these defects, and the entire recovery proceedings should be quashed.

3. The application goes on to state that the applicant had presented a petition under sec. 8 of the Act, but that petition was not decided by the Collector even up to February, 1956, when the present application was filed in this Court. Though the Collector did not decide the petition under sec. 8, and though all proceedings should have been stopped under sec. 8(4) till that petition was decided, the Collector went on with the execution and realized the amount of Rs. 11,808/2/- which was lying in the Bank of Bikaner Ltd., Sujangarh to the applicants credit. This was also against sec. 12 of the Act. The applicant, therefore, prayed for a writ or order prohibiting the Collector from proceeding further under the Act, and for a direction to the Collector to return the amount of Rs. 11,808/2/- to the applicant.

4. We have not thought it necessary to give in detail the defects pointed out by the applicant in the certificate under sec. 4, as we propose to mention them when we deal with the matter later.

5. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State, and it has been contended in reply that this was a case to which sec. 3 had no application, and that what had happened was that the Collector had filed the certificate under sec. 4 (2) of the Act. It was urged that the copy of the certificate had been sent as required by sec. 6, and that, in any case, even if the copy of the notice had not been sent by mistake, it was a mere irregularity which did not invalidate the certificate. It was also contended that the defects, if any, pointed out in the certificate were of a minor nature, and did not invalidate it. Lastly, it was urged that as there was a specific remedy provided under sec. 20 of the Act, the applicant was not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

6. We shall first take the question whether this Court should intervene in its extraordinary jurisdiction when there is a specific provision under sec. 20 of the Act for a suit for cancellation or modification of a certificate. There is no doubt that if the certificate is invalid for any substantial defect in it, a suit under sec. 20 can lie for its cancellation. The question, therefore, that falls for consideration is whether this Court should drive a person to the remedy of a suit under sec. 20 even in cases where it is clear that the provisions of sec. 3, 4 or 6 have not been strictly complied with, or the amount sought to be recovered is not a public demand as provided in the sched

Click Here to Read the rest of this document