STATE Vs. GUMAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision which challenges the judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur dated 10-7-63, u/s 23 (b) of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, whereby the learned R. A. A. accepted the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the late Shri Manmal, against the order of the learned Addl Collector Jaipur dated 21-4-61. He has cancelled the certificate filed against Shri Guman chand Kailashchand, Prakashchand, Premchand sons of late Shri Manmal and Smt Surajbai widow of late Shri Manmal, and has further ordered that the execution proceedings against them may be dropped.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of this case are summarised as follows: - The Chief Engineer, Electrical & Mechanical Department filed a requisition u/s 3 of the Rajasthan Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the recovery of Rs. 2,42,672/15/- due on account of embezzlement against Shri Manmal, Store-keepar of the said Department. The Collector filed a certificate u/s 4 of the Act and issued notices u/s 6 of the Act to the defaulters. Thereupon the defaulters submitted their objections. Shri Raj Kumar, the then Collector heard the parties and by his order dated 14th September, 1954 withdrew the certificate on 8-1-55. The main ground on which he passed this order was that the Chief Engineer, Electrical & Mechanical Department was not an authorised person to file the requisition. Subsequently, the State Government passed an order authorising the Executive Engineer (Generation) to file a consolidated requisition against the legal heirs of Shri Manmal for the recovery of Rs. 3,87,823/- on account of money said to have been embezzled by late Shri Manmal in collusion with his colleagues and assistants and other accomplices. The Executive Engineer (Generation) submitted a consolidated requisition to the Collector Jaipur for the recovery of the said amount from the present non-petitioners as legal heirs of late Shri Manmal and also from Kapurchand, Cashier, Champalal, Harikishan, Rajmal, Lalitkishan Amarchand Rampratap and Sushilkumar, all clerks in the Electrical and Mechanical Department.

(3.) I am inclined to uphold the contention of the learned Advocate General that the principle of res-judicata was inoperative in the instant case. The Collector's order dated 14-9-54 threw out the case merely on a technical ground that requisition had not been filed by an authorised person. This cannot therefore, be deemed to be an order on merits and it cannot be said that the dispute had been heard and finally decided. This cannot act as a bar for filing of a fresh requisition. The fresh requisition was subsequently filed by a duly authorised person namely the Executive Engineer (Generation) Shri Bhargava and the same was given due consideration by the Collector who filed a certificate u/s 4 of the Act by his order dated 21-2 65. As I have already observed this order became final because the respondents never challenged it by way of an appeal. The conclusion of the learned R. A. A. on the first objection is perverse and entirely unwarranted.