RAJHUMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Rajhumal under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the State of Rajasthan, and the Collector of Churu praying for a writ or order prohibiting the Collector from realizing a certain gum of money from him under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act (No. V of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act ).

(2.) THE case of the applicant was that he was an authorised ration dealer of food grains for Sujangarh town. In that connection, some criminal proceeding were started against him in 1952 with respect to wheat and juar worth Rs. 34. 079/1/3, which it was alleged, he had taken away in collusion with a clerk of the Supplies Department. That case was still pending against him when he received a notice in August, 1954, under sec. 6 of the Act, for payment of Rs. 34,079/1/3. THE applicant's contention is that the amount is not a public demand which could be recovered under the Act, and that, at any rate, no requisition of the D. S. O. or other competent authority, as required by sec. 3 of the Act, was ever issued. It is further contended that the Collector did not comply with the provisions of sec. 4 relating to tiling of the certificate. Further, though a notice was issued under sec. 6, a copy of the certificate, as required by that section, was not sent to the applicant. THE applicant, therefore, contends that there was no foundation for taking proceedings under the Act in view of these defects, and the entire recovery proceedings should be quashed.

(3.) THEN there is the contention that the demand cannot be recovered under the Public Demands Recovery Act at all as it is not covered by the Schedule. So far as that is concerned, it is enough to say that demand is covered by item 6 of the Schedule, which provides for any money payable to the Government, or to a department, or an officer of the Government under or in pursuance of a written instrument or agreement. In this case there was a written agreement between the applicant and the Government with respect to Sujangarh. The fact that this grain is said to have been taken not from Sujan-garh godown, but from other godown nearby would make no difference so long as the grain was given in view of the agreement between the applicant and the Government, and the money is due under the agreement. As there is an agreement between the applicant and the Government with respect to his being an authorised ration dealer for Sujangarh, the demand can be recovered under the Public Demands Recovery Act.