A. N. Varma, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a manufacturer and exporter of hand-knitted carpets, rugs, etc. is aggrieved by a citation dated December 5, 1986 issued by the Tehsildar, Gyanpur, Varanasi and the recovery certificate issued by the respondent no. 4 to the Collector, Varanasi, for realizing the amount stated therein as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner.
(2.) THE parties having exchanged affidavits, we are disposing of this petition finally at the stage of admission. THE demand/citation is challenged on four grounds. THE first is that the Bhadoi Woolens Limited (respondent no. 4) was not competent to invoke the provisions of U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 and to seek the assistance of the Collector, for the recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue under the said Act inasmuch as it is not a Government company nor instrumentality of the Government authorised to invoke the provisions of the said Act. THE contention is devoid of any merit. Section 3 of the said Act authorises both the State Government or a corporation owned and controlled by the Central Government or the State Government and specified in a notification issued in that behalf by the State Government in the official Gazette under section 2 (a) of the Act. Alongwith the counter affidavit the respondents have filed a copy of the notification dated August 8, 1986 whereby in exercise of powers under section 2 (a) the State Government has declared the respondent no. 4 as a corporation owned and controlled by the State Government. This notification coupled with the admitted fact that the respondent no. 4 is a subsidiary of the U. P. State Textile Corporation which is an undertaking owned and controlled by the State Government leaves no manner of doubt that respondent no. 4 was authorised to issue the recovery certificate in September, 1986 by which date the respondent no. 4 had already been declared to be a Corporation owned and controlled by the State Government entitled to recover its dues under the said Act. We, therefore, reject the first submission. The second argument was that the arrears sought to be recovered from the petitioners were admittedly of a period prior to the date of the issue of the said notification, that is, August 8, 1986, and inasmuch as there was nothing m the notification indicating that past arrears could also be recovered, the entire impugned proceedings are void.
(3.) THE contention is devoid of any merit. After the issue of the aforesaid notification declaring the respondent no. 4 to be a Corporation within the meaning of section 2 (a), it became entitled to apply for recovery of its dues under the Act, whether the dues were of a period prior to the notification or subsequent thereto. Section 3 is not confined to arrears arising only in the future. No such indication is there in the statute. THEre is, therefore, no element of retrospectivity Involved here. Even if it be held to have the flavour of retrospectivity the impugned notification being one pertaining to respondent it would be deemed to authorise the respondent no. 4 to recover even the past arrears. It is a legislation which merely provides an additional or special remedy to a Corporation owned and controlled by the State. It does not create any substantive right.;