The Sikkim Public Demands Recovery Act does not provide for an appeal or revision against a Certificate Officer's order, but a petition for review is allowed under Rule 7(4). The Certificate Officer can proceed ex parte and decide the case on merit if the parties are absent. The time limit of three months for completing the enquiry proceedings under Section 4(4) is directory, not mandatory. The Act is not unconstitutional for lack of an appeal or revision provision, but such a provision should be incorporated.

( 1 ) HERE is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE fact of the case, in short, is that respondent No. 6 is a Private Ltd. Co. with petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 5 as its share-holders and Directors. The above Ltd. Co. took a loan from respondent No. 3 whose Managing Director is respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 is a Corporation started by the Government of Sikkim (respondent No. 1) with a view to promote industrial development in the State. The respondent No. 3 advances financial loan to the growing industries wthin the State of Sikkim. The Directors of respondent No. 6 applied for such a loan and it was duly provided by the respondent No. 3. The total extent of financial assistance was Rs. 19. 3 lakhs. Besides that there was Bridge loan for Rs. 4. 28 lakhs. The aforesaid sanctioned loan amount was released in several instalments in favour of respondent No. 6. The instalments started from 26-9-83 and ended on 30-10-86. The above loanees made repayment of certain amounts towards principal and interest, the last having been paid on 16-2-90. As per terms of repayment it was initially scheduled to be paid off by 16 instalments starting from 26-3-85 to 26-9-92 but ultimately the schedule was revised and the repayment was to be made from 15-3-87 to 15-3-93. The borrower executed mortgage deed with respect to some immovable properties. Besides that a bond of guarantee was executed by the Directors of the Firm (respondent No. 6) on 26-7-83. Again, the respondent No. 5 executed another bond of guarantee on behalf of respondent No. 6 on 16-8-83.

( 3 ) AS the payments were not made as scheduled and as huge arrear was there, a certificate proceeding was started on 22-8-94 by the respondent No. 3 under Sikkim Public Demands Recovery Act. The Certificate Officer enquired into the matter and by his Order dated 7-4-95 issued certificate for the outstanding dues of Rs. 43,10,000. 00 and odd. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order two of the share-holders of respondent No. 6 have moved this Court with the present application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that since there is no provision under the Sikkim Public Demands Recovery Act for preference of any appeal or revision against any order of the Certificate Officer, the petitioners are to take recourse to such an application.

( 4 ) THE matter has been contested by respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in two groups.

( 5 ) IT is the admitted position that loan was taken from respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 6 being owner and represented by respondent No. 5 and petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. There is no dispute that payment was not made off by the impugned Firm as per agreed schedule. It is also the factual position that the registered deed of mortgage could not be produced by the lender (respondent No. 3 ). It is also not available from the record if such a deed was at all registered. But the record contains two unregistered bonds of guarantee as referred to above. The main plea of the petitioners is that the certificate proceeding was started with respect to time barred debtsand that the enquiry prior to issuance of certificate was not completed within the time specified under the Recovery Act. It has also been contended that the Certificate Officer acted in an unjudicious manner causing prejudice to the debtors.

( 6 ) WITH regard to the time barred claim the contention of the learned Advocate General representing respondents Nos. 1 to 4 is that there is no provision under the Public Demands Recovery Act which bars issuance of certificate with respect to any claim which is otherwise barred under the Limitation Act. A reading of Section 4 (1) would give out that Certificate Officer should sign a certificate only after being satisfied that the public demand is 'due'. This particular word 'due' indicates that it should not include any amount which is barred by any law. It should be the amount justly rec