JAIMAL SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that one Iqbal Singh obtained a loan of Rs. 12,000/-in the year 1949 from the Rehabilitation Finance Administration. THE petitioner and Purushottam Singh stood as sureties for repayment of the loan. THE petitioner is a displaced person, and carries on business at Jaipur. THE Collector of Delhi District forwarded the certificate of non-recovery under sec. 3 (1) of the Revenue Recovery Art, 1890, to the Collector, Jaipur, respondent No. 1, on 1st February, 1955, requesting the Collector, Jaipur, to recover a sum of Rs. 10,721/4/- with further interest at 6% p. a. till repayment, from Sardar Iqbal Singh, respondent No. 3. THE petitioner's name was also mentioned in the said certificate at the bottom as surety. THE Tehsildar, Sawai Jaipur, on instructions from the Collector, issued notices to the petitioner on 2nd April, 1955, and 30th April 1955, to deposit the sum of Rs 10,721/4/-in the Tehsil. THE Sub Divisional Officer on 3rd April. 1955, sanctioned attachment of the movable property of the petitioner. THE petitioner challenged the recovery proceedings on various grounds, but only two of them are pressed before us. It was urged that the amount was not payable to the Collector of Delhi, and, therefore, the Collector of Delhi was not authorised to issue the certificate under sec. 3 (1) of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. THE other ground urged was that if that certificate could be said to have been issued in exercise of the power under sec. 5 of that Act, the Collector of Delhi still had no jurisdiction, as the amount was not recoverable by any public officer other than the Collector or any local authority. On behalf of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration it is conceded that the certificate should have been sent by the Collector under sec. 5 of the Act, as the amount was payable not the Collector, but to the Rehabilitation Finance Administration. However, sec. 5 refers to the foregoing provisions, and therefore, the mention of sec. 3 does not invalidate the certificate.