CHATARBHUJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under sec. 23-B of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952, against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, dated the 14th February, 1963, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhadol, dated the 24th March, 1960. It was averred on bahalf of the petitioner that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority had erred in not exercising the jurisd'ction vested in him. It was stated that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority had ignored the word 'file' written in the form of the notice given to the petitioner under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act and had wrongly interpreted the meaning of the word 'present' occurring in sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Government Advocate and have examined the record. A perusal of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated the 24th March, 1960 indicates that the petition denying liability submitted by the petitioner under sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act was dismissed on the ground that it had not been presented personally by the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner went in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, who also upheld the decision of the lower Court and dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Form (No. 3) of the notice which has been prescribed to be issued to the defaulter under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. It reads inter alia : - "if you deny your liability to pay the said sum of Rs. . . . . . . . . you may, within thirty days from the service of this notice, file in my office a petition denying liability, in whole or in part. If within the said thirty days, you fail to file such a petition, or if you fail to show cause, or do not show sufficient cause why such certificate should not be executed, it will be executed under the provisions of the said Act, unless you pay Rs. . . . . . . . . (Rs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . on account of the demand and Rs. . . . . . . . . on account of costs of realisation) into my office. " According to sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, the defaulter is required to present to the Collector a petition in the prescribed form signed and verified in the prescribed manner denying his liability in whole or in part within 30 days from the service of the above mentioned notice under Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. In the present case, the petitioner sent the petition denying liability to the Sub-Divisional Officer exercising the power of the Collector under this Act by post and the learned Sub-Divisional Officer did not consider this to be an appropriate manner of presentation. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, the manner of presentation has not been specified. A bare reading of the notice received by the petitioner would show that the petitioner was required to file a petition denying liability within 30 days in the office of the Collector. He was not required to present it personally. It would not, therefore, be reasonable to import the procedure of the Civil Procedure Code in this case. In the Civil Procedure Code, the notices issued under O. V, Rules 1 and 5 clearly demand the appearance of the defendants in person. (Appendix B Forms I and 2) and a date is specified for the same, but under the P. D. R. Act, the notice demands the filing of the petition denying liability in the office of the Collector and not the appearance of the defaulter in person. Nor does it specify a date specified for the presentation of the petition denying liability. The defaulter is required to do so at any time within 30 days from the service of the notice. Under the circumstances it would not be reasonable to expect the petitioner to appear in person to submit the petition denying liability. In reply, it was stated by the learned Government Advocate that as no provision has specifically been made in the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act permitting the defaulters to send their representations by post, it would be deemed that they were required to present them in person. I am, however not impressed by this argument. When a notice is received by a person from a Court, he should be deemed to have complied with it if he has acted in accordance with the ordinary interpretation of the order communicated through the notice. If the purpose of the legislature had been to require the defaulter to appear in person, there is no reason why the same was not incorporated in the Section or in the body of the notice. Under the circumstances, I am driven to the conclusion that sufficient compliance of the notice has been made in this case by the defaulter, who should now be given an opportunity by the Collector to be heard in person on a specified date before his petition denying liability is finally decided. Accordingly, I accept this revision petition and remand the case to the Collector (Sub Divisional Officer, Jhadol) for further action after hearing the petitioner on the date to be specified by him. .