PURUSHOTTAMDAS Vs. COLLECTOR JHUNJHUNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE material facts are these. According to the petitioners, sometime in 1953 the Collector, Jhunjhunu, respondent No. 1 served upon the petitioners a notice under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 (Act No. V. of 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 4236/9/- to the State failing which their property would be attached and auctioned. THE petitioners denied their liability contending, inter alia, that no money was outstanding against them at all, and that the Collector had no jurisdiction to take any proceedings in the matter in the absence of a certificate under sec. 4 of the Act of 1952. THE Collector paid no heed to decide some of these objections himself or have the remaining ones decided by the requisitioning department in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Consequently the petitioners filed a writ application in this Court in D B. Civil writ No. 344 of 1953. By its judgment dated the 23rd December, 1954 a Division Bench of this Court held that the proceedings taken by the Collector for the recovery of the amount for which a requisition had been sent by the Civil Supplies Department by its letter dated the 22nd July, 1953, were altogether illegal and, therefore, the Tehsildar Jhunjhunu was prohibited from taking proceedings for recovery of the amount in question under the said order of the Collector. It is alleged that nothing further was done until 1958 for a period of about three years, when the Collector again served a notice upon the petitioners repeating his demand to deposit the sum of Rs 4236/9/- and to show cause why the same should not be recovered from them. (See Ex. 2 ). This action was taken by the Collector acting under sec. 6 of the Act. of 1952. THE petitioners again submitted their objections in which they stoutly denied their liability to pay anything to the State. THEir case was that they had not entered into any contract whatever with the State nor was the amount in question otherwise payable by them. THEy also urged that the -contract or agreement on the basis of which the State's claim was based should have been and should still be disclosed to them. Somehow nothing further transpired and the matter was allowed to remain in cold storage until the 6th September, 1962, when the Naib-Tehsildar Jhunjhunu served a further notice on the petitioners so deposit the amount in question (See Ex. 4 ). THE petitioners referred to the earlier proceedings and submitted that they were being unnecessarily harassed without the objections, which had been raised by them, being dealt with and disposed of according to law, and, therefore, they prayed that the recovery proceedings be withdrawn.