(1.) The facts in this case are shortly as follows.
(2.) In 1948 by Act 12 of 1948 was established the Rahahilitation Finance Adminstration, the main purpose of which was the giving of financial assistance to displaced persons, to enable them to settle in business or industry. The respondent No. 1, Shri Jatindra Narayan Majumdar claims to be a refugee from East Pakistan. Prior to 1952, he took a loan from the said Administration of a sum of Rs. 35,000 in connection with his cloth business carried on in Calcutta. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 stood as sureties for the re-payment of the said loan. On the 29th of August. 1952 a fire broke out in the said shop and it is claim-ed that the entire stock was burnt out and destroyed The stock was insured with the Central Insurance Company Limited and as the laid Insurance Company failed to pay the claim, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit being suit No. 3284 of 1954 in the Original Side of this Court, claiming the value of the stock amounting to Rs. 66,050/13/6 pies, for damages and other reliefs. The amounts due to the said Administration are, under the said Act 12 of 1948, recoverable as a public demand. On or about the 24th of February, 1958 a certificate of recovery under Section 3(1) of the Revenue He recovery Act. 1890 (Act 1 of 1890) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") was issued by the Collector, Delhi District and forwarded to the Collector, 24 Parganas, Alipore. A copy of this certificate is Annexure A to the petition at page 14 of the Paper Book. Section 3(1) of the said Act is in the following terms:
(3.) In our opinion, the learned Judge was in error in allowing the application although he was right in holding that the decision of this Court in Bulu Rani's case, was applicable. What happened in this case appears to be quite clear. The Collector, Delhi through his authorised agent issued a certificate under the said Act and transmitted it to the Collector, 24 Parganas. Under the said Act it was only a "collector" as denned under the said Act that could realise the amount of the certificate and the order of the Collector, 24 Parganas transferring the case to the Certificate Officer, who issued a fresh certificate and proceeded under the Public Demands Recovery Act to execute it, was a procedure not according to law. When the respondent No. 1 made the application on 11th July, 1962, this error was realised and so the correct procedure was taken by the Collector, 24 Parganas. He withdrew the case to his own file, renumbered it as a new case and proceeded to execute the certificate which had been issued by the Collector of Delhi. A proclamation was issued as required by the said Act, and further proceedings took place in accordance with the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act, as there is no procedure fixed under the said Act for the subsequent proceedings. The objection which is taken before us is as follows. It is said that when the certificate was put into execution here, and a wrong procedure followed, the certificate spent its force and the Collector, 24 Parganas could not continue realisation of the said certificate by re-numbering the case before him. It is suggested that what should be done now, if the appellant wishes to realise the amount is to issue a fresh certificate by the Collector, Delhi. In our opinion, this argument has no substance. The certificate had been issued by the Collector of Delhi and is subsisting until it is realised, and/or withdrawn or cancelled. All that had happened was that a wrong procedure was adopted which is not in accordance with law. Such a procedure is void in the eye of law and cannot affect the certificate. Now the Collector, 24 Parganas is proceeding correctly under the provisions of law The case number is, therefore, not a mere re-numbering of the case that has been commenced by the certificate officer but is an original proceeding, had in accordance with law. We see no defect in it. We are unable to agree that the only way of realising the amount of the certificate would be now to issue a fresh certificate. That being so, the order made by the Court below was not correct and must be set aside.