KAMALA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sujit Narayan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the notice dated 31.3.2010 issued by the Additional Collector-cum-Certificate Officer, Dhanbad asking the petitioner to file show cause as to why a sum of 46,88,000.00 be not recovered from him, is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (for short "the Act"), the said amount is not public demand. He further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he diverted the said fund in the year 1993, but no proceeding was started against him till he retired in 1997.

(2.) On the other hand, counsel for the State, referring to the counter affidavit, submitted that the petitioner received the said amount as advance in the years 1992-93 and 1993-94 against particular scheme of ARWSP under which 750 bores for installation of tube wells were to be done but, according to the petitioner, he spent the total amount in repair and maintenance as well as in purchase of fuel and lubricants; whereas the said fund was received from the Government of India under the said scheme and if it was not spent on the scheme, the said liability is to be borne by the State Government; and that petitioner has also caused suffering to the common people due to non-completion of scheme.

(3.) Section 3 (6) read with clause 8-A of Schedule 1 of the Act, provides that any outstanding loans and advances payable to the State Government or to a department or official of the State Government by any mode whatsoever is public demand recoverable under the Act. It cannot be disputed that the said amount received by the petitioner was an advance which was required to be paid back to the State Government by him if it was not spent on the scheme, for which it was provided. In my view, the demand in question comes within the purview of public demand.