TILAKRAM RAMBAKSH Vs. BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the validity of certain proceedings-started against the petitioners under the Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act (No. IV of 2002 Bk. ). The proceedings are for the recovery of a large sum of money mentioned as Rs. 4,98,589/1/6 due from the petitioners to the Patiala State Bank. Similar proceedings for the recovery of a much smaller sum of money said to be Rs. 25,691/- have also been separately started against the petitioners, and" another similar writ petition (Civil Writ 389 of 1958) has been filed to challenge those proceedings. The grounds in support of both the petitions are identical and it is convenient to deal with them together.

(2.) THE petitioners are a joint Hindu family firm styled Messrs. Tilakram Rambaksh of lehragaga. They admittedly had dealings with the Patiala State Bank and there was a transaction of a loan between the parties on 23-5-1953 out of which the present claim has arisen.

(3.) THE Patiala Recovery of State Dues Act defines "state dues" as any amount due to the rajpramukh of the State or the State, or any department of the State from any person and includes debts due to the Patiala State Bank. Section 4 of the Act authorises the head of department to determine in the prescribed manner the exact amount of State dues recoverable by his department from a defaulter. The Managing Director of the Patiala State Bank is the head of department under Clause (6) of Section 3 of the Act, section 5 of the Act lays down the modes of recovery after the exact amount has been determined by the head of department and, among other modes of recovery, it authorises the head of department to move the Nazim who is equivalent to a Deputy Commissioner or a collector to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. Section 12 of the Act authorises the government of the State to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and in particular to prescribe the manner in which the amount of State dues is to be determined by the head of department. The Act thus sets up a machinery both for the determination of the amount due from a particular person and the recovery of that amount once it is determined and, of course, the determination is to be made in accordance with the rules made under Section 12. Such rules have been framed and the respondents claim that the dues sought to be recovered in the present cases were determined in accordance with those rules. Rule 3 of the rules describes the mode of determination of dues and says: