VEER TRADERS Vs. AUTO TRADERS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO points have been urged in support of this petition : (i) The impugned recovery certificate issued by the respondent no. 1, admittedly a Corporation within the meaning of U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, not having been signed either by the Managing Director or by the Chairman of the Corporation, it was completely void and ineffectual in law. The recovery proceedings initiated by the Collector consequent upon such a certificate are also vitiated on the same ground. (ii) There was no agreement between the parties as contemplated under section 6 of the Act and consequently procedure prescribed under the said Act could not be invoked against the petitioner.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we consider it unnecessary to examine the second question as the petition is entitled to succeed on the first point. The impugned recovery certificate has been signed by the Secretary of the company and not either by the Managing Director or the Chairman. In order, however, that the Collector may proceed to recover the amount stated to be due in the recovery certificate, the certificate must be signed by a person authorised in that behalf in accordance with the provisions of section 3 (d) of the Act. In the case of Corporation, the requirement is that the recovery certificate should be signed either by the Director or the Chairman of the Corporation. In the case of the respondent no. 1 Company, there is provision for both the posts, namely, Managing Director and the Chairman. The statute does not provide that in case of a Corporation the recovery certificate may be signed even by a person authorised by the Managing Director or Chairman. Section 3 (d) of the Act provides :

(3.) WE are unable to agree. U. P. Public Moneys provides for a stringent machinery for recovery of public dues or dues analogous thereto. Instead of the normal remedy of a civil suit which is prescribed under the law for recovery of the dues claimed by a creditor, this Act arms the State and its instrumentalities with the power to recover the dues straightway inter-alia by arrest or detention or by attachment and sale of the debtor's properties and assets or by appointment of a receiver etc. The provisions of such an enactment must, therefore, be construed strictly before a Corporation can claim the benefit of the machinery provided thereunder. It is for this reason that the Legislature appears to have insisted that the Collector can act under sub-section (2) of section 3 in the case of a Corporation only if the recovery certificate is signed by the Managing Director or by the Chairman. As for the word "may" it is merely indicative of option and not compulsion.