RAJO SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner Rajo Singh has moved the High Court for grant of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of calling up and quashing the certificate issued by the Subdivisional Officer, Barh, on 19-2-1952 and the proceedings taken thereon in Certificate Case No. 11G of 1951-52 before Mr. K. Jha, Certificate Officer of Barh.

(2.) On 17-11-1947, the petitioner executed a contract to repair the irrigation system of village, Motibigha. The contract was entered into between the petitioner and the Subdivisional Officer of Earh. An estimate was prepared for a sum of Rs. 4,995/- and it was agreed between the parties that the work must be completed by 25-1-1948. As there was scarcity of labourers, the petitioner filed an application before the Subdivisional Officer for extension of the time to execute the work. The application was allowed and the Subdivisional Officer extended the time. After the work was completed, the Circle Officer of Barh checked the work in March, 1949. The petitioner submitted a bill which was finally passed by the Subdivisional Officer and the amount stipulated in the contract was paid to the petitioner. After a lapse of two and a half years the Subdivisional Officer deputed the Assistant Engineer to check the work. The Assistant Engineer made a report that some earth had been washed away, but he roughly estimated the earth work done to be Rs. 1,340/-. On 19-2-1952, the Subdivisional Officer issued a certificate for a sum of Rs. 3,548 which was the excess payment made to the petitioner by virtue of the contract. It appears that the petitioner was also prosecuted in the criminal Court on the complaint of the Circle Officer Rajeshwari Prasad. The complaint petition was filed on 16-2-1952, but the criminal court acquitted the petitioner of the charges levelled against him by its judgment dated 27-4-1953. But the certificate case proceeded against the petitioner, and on 9-3-1953. the Certificate Officer issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner and released him on bail of Rs. 8,000/- with two sureties of like amount each. On 20-6-1953, the Certificate Officer passed an order that the petitioner should be committed to civil prison for six months since he was not agreeable to pay the amount mentioned in the certificate. An appeal was preferred on behalf of the petitioner to the Collector, but the appeal was dismissed on 16-9-1953. An application in revision was also taken before the Commissioner of Patna Division but it was summarily dismissed. In this state of facts, the petitioner has moved the High Court for granting a writ of certiorari on the ground that the certificate proceedings were 'ab initio' void and without jurisdiction.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, the main contention of Mr. Lakshman Saran Sinha is that the certificate issued by the Certificate Officer of Barh on 19-2-1952 and the certificate proceedings taken before Mr. M. K. Jha were completely void and with- out jurisdiction. Counsel submitted that the amount of Rs. 4,995/- mentioned in the certificate was not a "public demand" within the meaning of Section 3(6) of Bihar and Orissa Act IV of 1914. Section 3(6) of Bihar & Orissa Act, IV of 1914 defines a "public demand" to mean any arrear or money mentioned or referred to in Schedule I of the Act and includes any interest which may, by law, be chargeable thereon up to the date on which a certificate is signed under Part II. Counsel for the petitioner referred to Schedule I of the Act and argued that the demand against the petitioner was not covered by any of the items mentioned in Schedule I. It was, therefore, contended that the certificate issued by the Subdivisional Officer and the certificate proceedings thereon were completely illegal and without jurisdiction. On this point the learned Government Pleader stated that the demands mentioned in the certificate would fall within the ambit of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 of Bihar and Orissa Act IV of 1914. Paragraph 4 of Schedule I reads as follows: