Petition Allowed.

By the Court.—The present writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery certificate and further quashing the notice dated Nil issued by respondent No. 5 contained as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive method against the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of printing and is carrying on its business by dyeing/printing of cloths which are sent for job work by different companies and corporations. The respondent No. 1 U.P. State Handloom Corporation Limited is also one of the concern which sends towels, sarees, malmal for job work of dyeing, printing, bleaching etc. to the petitioners and pays the job charges after completion of their work. The petitioners are dealing with the respondents since past about 15 years. According to the respondent No. 1 the petitioners concern owes a sum of Rs. 3,58,828.91 to the Corporation. As per communication of the respondent No. 1 dated 22.8.1997 certain malmals and borders sarees are lying with the petitioners and they are still with the petitioners which they are ready to return even today. In another statement respondent No. 1 has shown dues to the tune of Rs. 7,86,484.45 against the petitioners. The respondents itself is not clear what is the actual amount. There was a dispute between the petitioners and the Corporation, as such, the Chief Manager (Production) directing for constitution of a Committee to go into the details of the dispute between the petitioners and the respondents regarding the amount due to the petitioners. The petitioners presented themselves before the respondents with all the details and relevant documents but the dispute was not resolved. However, in spite of the best efforts of the petitioners, the dispute was not resolved and all of a sudden the respondent No. 1 has started recovery proceeding against the petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery certificate sent to the District Magistrate Kanpur Nagar for a sum of Rs. 21,59,588.80 is being recovered from the petitioners. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

3. Notices were issued and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed, therefore, with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being disposed of finally.

4. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the respondents have placed reliance of alleged agreement executed on 8th September, 1993. Petitioner submits that certain amount is due to be paid by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioners towards printing of towels. On the other hand, the respondent No. 1 claims that certain amount is due and stock is lying with the petitioners. The dispute between the parties has not been adjudicated before any proper forum and is such situation, the petitioners submit that the respondents cannot claim any amount without having any proper adjudication of the amount. As the amount has not been quantified and liability of amount has not been fixed upon the petitioners, therefore in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ganesh Rice Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 1993 EFR 549, it has been submitted in the aforesaid judgment that the authorities are not empowered to proceed straightway to recover the amount unless and until the amount is quantified. The reliance has been placed upon paras 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment :

“9. The claim of the Government is, in our opinion, pure and simple one for compensation in respect of the damage to gunny bags which it considers has resulted from some alleged acts or omission of the petitioner. It is clearly in the nature of a claim for unliquidated damage. There is, in our opinion, in these circumstances no right in the Government either under the agreement or under the Levy Order straightaway to proceed to recover such unliquidated damage from the petitioner without the