DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES Vs. JANARDAN NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS case may be put in short by eschewing out unnecessary details. He took a loan of Rs. 17000 from the Government on furnishing proper security under the Bihar and Orissa State Aid to Industries Act A certificate was issued against him for Rs. 19,200 inclusive of interest. Plaintiff filed objection before the certificate Officer in Certificate Misc. Case No. 51/58-59. His objection was overruled. An appeal against the same was dismissed. The suit is filed under section 43/ (3) of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a declaration that the certificate is void and that the same should be cancelled. A plea was taken that no proceeding was drawn against the plaintiff under the provisions of the State Aid Industries Act to obtain his explanation for the default and that the certificate was premature and without jurisdiction. In the written statement a plea was taken that the suit was liable to be dismissed as no notice was issued under Section 80, C. P. C. to the defendant, who is the director of Industries. Plaintiff failed to repay the loan for three instalments which fell due on 31-3-56, 31-3-57 and 31-3-58. He also did not furnish the utilisation certificate to the effect that the loan amount had been utilised for the purpose it was granted. Accordingly the certificate for the entire loan amount inclusive of interest was validly issued. Court's jurisdiction to try the suit was also questioned.

(2.) THE learned Subordinate Judge held that the certificate and the proceeding arising therefrom were illegal and void and that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. He held that notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was not necessary as the suit was a continuation of the certificate proceeding. He accordingly decreed the suit with costs. Against this decree, the defendant has filed the appeal.

(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed as no notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was served on the defendant. Admittedly no notice has been served. Mr. Rath relied upon State of Seraikella v. Union of india, AIR 1951 SC 253; Hiraluxmi v. L-T. Officer. AIR 1955 Pat 404 and Hus-sain all Mirza v. State of Andh Pra, AIR 1983 Andh Pra 164 in support of his contention that a notice under Section 80 C. P. C. was not necessary. Section 43 (3) of the Act runs thus: