HARISH CHAND Vs. COLLECTOR OF AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are asked to consider in this case whether the provisions contained in section 35 of the Punjab State Aid to Industries Act, 1935, are repugnant to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner, at whose instance this question has been raised, was granted a loan of Rs. 5,000/- in October, 1950, this being one of the forms in which State aid could be given by virtue of section 17 of the Act. To secure the loan, a bond, mortgaging a piece of land with Government, was obtained. The loan had to be repaid at a certain time, but the petitioner did not make any payment and, in consequence, the officer empowered under the Act, issued a notice under section 23 of the Act, and, since this did not have any effect, the competent officer issued a declaration mentioning the amount due from the petitioner. Section 24 of the Act makes such a declaration conclusive evidence of its contents and permits the production of such a declaration in a Civil Court as if it were a decree of a Civil Court, and section 25 of the Act requires that on the production of such a declaration the Civil Court will proceed to attach the property mentioned in the declaration and further proceed to realise the amount in the same manner as is done in the execution of a decree. It appears, however, that in the meantime the property, that had been mortgaged, had been sold in satisfaction of some other debt due from the petitioner. The department concerned, therefore, obtained the sanction of the State Government to recover the amount due from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. This is permitted under section 35 of the Act which is directly in question. The section runs -

(3.) The petitioner objects to recourse being had to section 35 of the Act, and the contention raised on his behalf is that this provision of law is in conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution and for that reason invalid.