( 1 ) THE circumstances in which tills application under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed are that by a mortgage deed executed on 5th December 1959 the respondent No. 5, namely, Bhandari Iron and Steel Company Private Limited of indore (hereinafter referred to as the Company), mortgaged its entire immoveable property with the petitioner, the State Bank of Indore (hereinafter referred to as the Bank ). The said Company failed and neglected to pay the employer's contribution due from if under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of the periods from September, 1957, to July, 1958, and from August to September, 1958, and consequently proceedings for the recovery of the employer's contribution from the Company as an arrear of land revenue were started under Section 3 of the Act read with section 155 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). In those proceedings, the Naib-Tahsildar of Indore attached a Chawl belonging to the Company which, along with other property belonging to the Company, had been mortgaged with the Bank. The Bank objected to the proposed sale of the Chawl on the ground that the property sought to be sold stood mortgaged to it on the date of the attachment and that the demand of the employer's contribution under the Act had no priority over its claim under the mortgage against the Company. The Naib-Tahsildar rejected this objection taking the view that by virtue of Sections 137 and 152 of the Code the property attached could be sold free of all encumbrances.

( 2 ) THE petitioner Bank then preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Indore, which was rejected. While rejecting the appeal the Sub-Divisional Officer expressed the view that as the arrear of employer's contribution under the Act was recoverable as an arrear of land revenue under Section 8 of the Act, Section 155 of the Code and all other provisions of the Code contained in Chapter XI of the code were applicable; and that, therefore the property attached could be sold free of all encumbrances. He also added that since the demand in respect of the employer's contribution under the Act accrued before the mortgage was executed by the respondent-Company in favour of the Bank, the Bank could not claim priority "over Government dues simply by effecting a mortgage on a later date. " the petitioner-Bank then preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner, indore, and applied for stay of the sale of the property attached for the recovery of the employer's contribution due from the Company. The Commissioner rejected the petitioner's prayer for stay. Thereupon, the Bank filed this petition for quashing by a writ of certiorari the orders of the Naib-Tahsildar, Indore, and the sub-Divisional Officer, Indore, rejecting its objections and for the issue of a direction prohibiting the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from selling the property attached free from the mortgage encumbrance in favour of toe Bank.

( 3 ) IT was argued by Shri Chitaley, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that there was no provision in the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, giving to the demand in respect of the employer's contribution priority of payment over other debts owed by the employer to a private person or the Government; and that Sac. 8 of the Act merely laid down that any arrear of employer's contribution would be recoverable by the appropriate Government in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue, and did not create any charge on the employer's property for the payment of the contribution. Learned counsel proceeded to say that under section 155 (c) of the Code theprovisions contained in Chapter XI of the code in so far as they were applicable would apply to the recovery of the amount of employer's contribution as an arrear of land revenue, but from this it did not follow that all the provisions contained in that Chapter become applicable i