KUNDAN LAL Vs. THE COLLECTOR, GURDASPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated January 27. 1964 (copy Annexure 'A -1' to the writ petition), the Collector Gurdaspur held that he was satisfied that Kundan Lal petitioner, ex -Wasil Baqi Nawis, Gurdaspur, was a public accountant' as defined in section 3 of the Public Accountants' Default Act, 1850 (Act 12 of 1850). hereinafter called the Act, and whereas he had in his capacity as a public accountant embezzled or defalcated Government money to the extent of Rs. 65,370. 90 NP it was directed that the said amount was liable to be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue as provided in section 4 of the Act. It was further directed in the said order of the Collector that the residential house of the petitioner in Gurdaspur town be attached and auctioned according to the rules. The above said order was passed without any notice to the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity to show cause against the allegation that he was a 'public accountant' as defined in section 3 of the Act or that he had embezzled any part of the amount in question or that he was otherwise liable to pay the amount in dispute. Objections of the petitioner dated February 28, 1964 (copy Annexure 'A -2' to the writ petition), against the impugned order of the Collector, were dismissed on March 17, 1964 (copy of order is Annexure 'A -3' to the writ petition). The plea about the petitioner not being a 'public accountant' for more than one reason was pressed before the Collector. The learned Collector, however, held that the petitioner was a 'public accountant' within the meaning of section 3 of the Act and, therefore, repelled the petitioner's contention. Thereupon, the present writ petition was filed praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the orders of the Collector.

(2.) THE petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents, who are the Collector of Gurdaspur and the State of Punjab. The respondents have filed a joint written statement dated February 24, 1965.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the second ground of attack, which is the same as was pressed before the Collector in the petitioner's objections, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 3 of the Act defines 'public accountant' in the following terms: