A. N. Verma, J. - (1.) TWO points have been urged in support of this petition : (i) The impugned recovery certificate issued by the respondent no. 1, admittedly a Corporation within the meaning of U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, not having been signed either by the Managing Director or by the Chairman of the Corporation, it was completely void and ineffectual in law. The recovery proceedings initiated by the Collector consequent upon such a certificate are also vitiated on the same ground. (ii) There was no agreement between the parties as contemplated under section 6 of the Act and consequently procedure prescribed under the said Act could not be invoked against the petitioner.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we consider it unnecessary to examine the second question as the petition is entitled to succeed on the first point. The impugned recovery certificate has been signed by the Secretary of the company and not either by the Managing Director or the Chairman. In order, however, that the Collector may proceed to recover the amount stated to be due in the recovery certificate, the certificate must be signed by a person authorised in that behalf in accordance with the provisions of section 3 (d) of the Act. In the case of Corporation, the requirement is that the recovery certificate should be signed either by the Director or the Chairman of the Corporation. In the case of the respondent no. 1 Company, there is provision for both the posts, namely, Managing Director and the Chairman. The statute does not provide that in case of a Corporation the recovery certificate may be signed even by a person authorised by the Managing Director or Chairman. Section 3 (d) of the Act provides : "To any agreement providing that any money payable thereunder to the State Government (or the Corporation) shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue ; and such person (i) makes any default in repayment of the loan or advance or any instalment thereof ; or (ii) having become liable under the conditions of the grant to refund the grant or any portion thereof, makes any default in the refund of such grant or portion or any instalment thereof ; or (iii) otherwise fails to comply with the terms of the agreement ; in the case of the State Government, such officer as may be authorised in that behalf by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette, and in the case of the Corporation or a Government Company the Managing Director (or where there is no Managing Director then the Chairman of the Corporation, by whatever name called) thereof, and in the case of a banking company, the local agent thereof by whatever name called may send a certificate to the Collector mentioning the sum due from such person and requesting that such sum together with costs of the proceedings be recovered as if it were an arrears of land revenue." It will, therefore be seen that the Collector gets jurisdiction to recover the amount stated in the recovery certificate as arrears of land revenue only if there is a valid recovery certificate, i.e. as recovery certificate signed by a person competent in that behalf as required under section 3 (d). A bare perusal of section 3 (d) leaves no manner of doubt that in the case of a Corporation the certificate has to be signed only by the Managing Director or if there is no Managing Director then the Chairman of the Corporation by whatever name he is called. No other officer of the Company is authorised to sign the recovery certificate such as is contemplated under section 3 of the Act. Emphasising the words- "may send a certificate to the Collector..." learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the word "may" indicates some degree of elasticity in the requirement of the statute that in the case of a Corporation the certificate should be signed by the Managing Director or if there is no Managing Director by the Chairman.
(3.) WE are unable to agree. U. P. Public Moneys provides for a stringent machinery for recovery of public dues or dues analogous thereto. Instead of the normal remedy of a civil suit which is prescribed under the law for recovery of the dues claimed by a creditor, this Act arms the State and its instrumentalities with the power to recover the dues straightway inter-alia by arrest or detention or by attachment and sale of the debtor's properties and assets or by appointment of a receiver etc. The provisions of such an enactment must, therefore, be construed strictly before a Corporation can claim the benefit of the machinery provided thereunder. It is for this reason that the Legislature appears to have insisted that the Collector can act under sub-section (2) of section 3 in the case of a Corporation only if the recovery certificate is signed by the Managing Director or by the Chairman. As for the word "may" it is merely indicative of option and not compulsion. That being so, the impugned recovery certificate dated 16-8-1986 (Annexure-6) was manifestly invalid and the Collector could not on the basis of such a certificate proceed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. It is, however, hardly necessary to add that if it is otherwise open to the respondent no. 1 to invoke the provisions of the said Act it will be open to it to issue a fresh recovery certificate duly signed either by the Managing Director or if there is no Managing Director then by the Chairman in accordance with law.;