The prohibition on detention under Section 281 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not apply when the arrears are different, and the power can be exercised from time to time.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. K. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Khanna, appearing for respondent No. 3 and learned standing counsel. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the recovery proceedings initiated against him by Citation No. 072219 dated 30th October, 2002.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly stated are :

"petitioner is one of the Directors of a Private Limited Company, namely, Allahabad Fertiliser sales Private Limited. A loan of Rs. 73,00,000 was taken from the respondent No. 3 by the aforesaid company. The company failed to repay the loan as a consequence of which proceedings for recovery was initiated against the Directors. A citation dated 14th October, 1997 for an amount of Rs. 1,46,40,165. 98 was issued against which Writ Petition No. 42659 of 1997, was filed. The writ petition was finally decided on 24th April, 1998, by which Directors were permitted to sell of its company and its assets. However, the Directors were unable to sell the company and repay the loan. Another citation dated 19. 7. 1999, for an amount of Rs. 1,87,32,191. 30 was issued in pursuance of which petitioner was arrested by the revenue authority on 10th August, 1999 and was detained in custody till 25th October, 1999. Another citation dated 13. 6. 2001 was issued for an amount of Rs. 4,29,09,935. 31. Petitioner filed Writ petition No. 22948 of 2001 against the citation dated 13. 6,2001 in which an interim order was passed by this Court on 20th June, 2001, staying the arrest of the petitioner till 10th September, 2001. It has been stated in paragraph 12 of the writ petition that although the aforesaid writ petition is still pending but the same has become infructuous as a fresh citation has been issued by the respondent on 30th October, 2002 being citation No. 072219 for an amount of Rs. 4,29,09,935. 31. The said citation dated 30th October, 2002, has been challenged by the petitioner by means of this writ petition. "

( 3 ) SRI A. K. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having been already detained in civil prison from 10. 8. 1999 to 25. 10. 1999, he cannot be again arrested on the basis of citation dated 30. 10. 2002. The counsel for the petitioner contended that maximum period prescribed under Section 281 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, is fifteen days, hence detention beyond the aforesaid 15 days is not permissible. In support of his submission, Mishra placed reliance on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sangam Lal gupta v. Sales Tax Officer and Ors. , 1969 ALJ 257 and Rasul Bux v. State of U, P. and Ors. , 1977 AWC 711, Sri Mishra has also placed reliance on Apex Court judgment in Strawboard manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Gutta Mill Workers Union, AIR 1953 SC 95. Sri Anurag Khanna appearing for the respondent No. 3 refuting the submission of counsel for the petitioner, contended that the maximum period of detention prescribed under Section 281 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is not applicable when the arrest is for different arrears. The contention is that if the arrears sought to be recovered are different, there is no prohibition in again detaining the petitioner for realisation of different arrears. He submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in Sangam Lal Guptas case (supra) has laid down the aforesaid proposition when the recovery is for the same arrears. Sri Khanna submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 10th August, 1999 and detained till 25th October, 1999, in pursuance of the citation dated 19. 7. 1999 for an amount of Rs. 1,87,32,191. 30 whereas the citation which has been challenged in the present writ petition is dated 30th October. 2002 and is for an amount of rs. 4,29,09,935. 31 plus collection charges. The submission is that since the citation now challenged in the present writ petition