The provisions of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, for recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue, are not applicable to simple mercantile transactions where the price for goods/materials supplied remains unpaid.

( 1 ) THE only controversy involved in the bunch of these writ petitions is whether on the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners at the Instance of concerned respondent, recourse could be taken to the provisions contained in Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues)Act, 1972 (for short Recovery Act ).

( 2 ) M/s. Rewa Gases Private Limited have prayed that recovery certificate dated 6. 10. 1990 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition), Vikas Industrial Gases Limited have prayed that citation No. 132803 dated 21. 8. 1991 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and Vindhyachal Air Products Private limited have prayed that recovery certificate dated 6. 11. 1996 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition)may be quashed. In these documents, substantial amount is sought to be recovered against the three petitioners respectively for the alleged price of the materials supplied by the respondent concerned to the petitioners. Undlsputedly, U. P. . Carbide and Chemicals Limited had made certain supplies to each of the petitioners and the price thereof has not been paid. This has resulted in recovery proceedings initiated by the U. P. Carbide and Chemicals Limited under the recovery Act. When the writ petitions were filed, counter-affidavits were called. It transpires that U. P. Carbide and Chemicals Limited have gone in the meantime under liquidation. Consequently, it is now represented by the Official Liquidator on whose behalf Sri Sunil ambwani, learned counsel, has put in appearance. Counter-affidavits have been filed by the official Liquidator. Rejoinder-affidavits have also been filed by the petitioners to those counter-affidavits. Interim orders were passed while entertaining the writ petitions staying realisation proceedings under the Recovery Act and as prayed by the parties learned counsel, the writ petitions are being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

( 3 ) SRI S. C. Budhwar, senior counsel, assisted by Sri Anil Sharma and Sri R. P. Agrawal, has been heard at considerable length in support of this writ petition. Sri Sunil Ambwani appearing on behalf of U. P. Carbide and Chemicals Limited (under liquidation) and Sri Virendra Kumar, standing counsel, appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh have been heard in opposition at length.

( 4 ) AT the very outset. It may be pointed out that Courts are reluctant in Interfering in matters where advantage is taken by a person or a firm or company in business transactions and payment is not made or is evaded on one ground or the other. It was rightly pointed out by the respondents counsel where defaulters who may be proceeded with under the Recovery Act comes to Court for equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such person, firm or company finds it difficult to get such a relief from the Court. But, as stated above, a particular mode of recovery in a concerned transaction is quite different from the money being due as price of the materials supplied. The provisions under the Recovery Act would apply only where it is permissible by those provisions. In other cases where price of the goods/materials supplied, if remains unpaid, mode of recovery has to be found out somewhere else and not under the provisions of Recovery Act.

( 5 ) FROM the materials on record, there does not appear to be any State-sponsored Scheme under which any of the petitioners may have been supplied any material or goods. At least counter-affidavits are silent on this point. The Court, therefore, is to proceed on the basis of that. There is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners which have been repeatedly averred in various paragraphs of the writ petition that each of the petitioners had entered into mercantile transaction with the opposite party No. 3, U. P. Carbide and Chemicals limited. From the pleadings, it has been further made clear that the price for the supply of the goods has not been paid. The contention of the petitioner