RAM LAL PODDAR Vs. TAHSILDAR NANPARA DISTRICT BAHRAICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India for the issue of a writ of ha beas corpus and of certiorari quashing cer tain documents and processes. The peti tion arises out of the following facts:-

(2.) THE petitioner Ram Lal Poddar alleges that he made an application in the year 1949 for supply of some materials on credit for the construction of a masonry well for purposes of irrigation, and on the basis of that application the Agriculture Department supplied some materials in in stalments but not all the materials indent ed by him. The Agriculture Department assessed the price of the material supplied at Rs. 420.80. He received a citation in the year 1963 for the payment of the as sessed price. Subsequently, his moveables of the value of Rs. 1500/- were attached and entrusted in the Supurdgi of one Suraj Lal as custodian and the attached goods were not returned to him and nothing was heard about the recovery processes till the close of the year 1968. He was arrested on January 27, 1969 on a warrant of re covery for the realization of Rs. 420.80 as the price and Rs. 41/- as the decretal amount. He then made an application (Annexure I), supported by an affidavit (Annexure II) and he was then released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and a surety bond for Rs. 461. 80. His grievance is that he was put in double jeopardy in asmuch as his movables worth Rs. 1500/were attached and still he was arrested under section 281, U. P. Zamiudari Aboli tion and Land Reforms Act and Rule 247 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. His contention is that he had purchased goods on credit and the price did not amount to arrears of land revenue and, therefore, the coercive pro cesses prescribed for the recovery of ar rears of land revenue had no application in his case. His further contention is that the unpaid purchase money could not be regarded as "financial assistance" under the Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1965 and, therefore, that Act also has no applica tion. It is in these circumstances that he has prayed for a writ of habeas corpus so that the restraint put on his liberty by the personal and surety bonds is terminated and for a writ of certiorari quashing the said bonds, the citation, and ancillary re covery processes.

(3.) THE first point is whether or not a writ of habeas corpus can lie after a person is detained and then released on bail and regains his liberty. This point is concluded by Sandal Singh v. District Ma gistrate and Supdt., Dehra Dun, AIR 1934 All 148, a Division Bench decision of this Court wherein Sulernan, C. J. speaking for the Court observed thus:-