Sarjoo Prosad, C. J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this case prays for an appropriate writ quashing a certificate, for realisation of a sum of Rs. 5625/- from the petitioner, which purports to have been issued under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 Act No. V of 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act), and for prohibiting the respondents from taking any action against him for enforcement of the certificate in question.
(2.) ON the 29th of March, 1956, an auction was held in the office of the Mining Engineer, Jaipur Division, who is the first respondent to this application, of the right to collect royalty of Jhanjhra and kankar mines in the Tehsil of Jhunjhunu during the period commencing from 1st April, 1956, and ending on 31st March, 1958. The petitioner offered the highest bid at the auction of Rs. 7,500/- per year, and the sale or settlement for collection of royalty was knocked down in his favour. This was of course subject to acceptance by the Government, which had complete discretion in accepting or refusing the same. As required by the Rules, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1875/-, 25% of the amount of his bid, in the office of the Mining Engineer, the same day. ON the conditions of the auction, if the contract were completed, the settlement was to commence with effect from the 1st of April, 1956. It does not appear that any formal communication of the acceptance of his bid by the Government was communicated to him, and on the 26th of May, 1056, the petitioner sent a letter to the Mining Engineer expressly revoking his offer from the date in question. Subsequently on the 4th of June, 1956, the petitioner was informed by the Mining Engineer that the contract in his favour had been sanctioned by the Director of the Deptt. representing the Government. The petitioner insisted that he having already revoked his offer it was not open to the respondent to accept the same, and he insisted under repeated communications that the advance deposit of Rs. 1875/- should be refunded to him. The respondent, however, refused to accept that position, and on the contrary demanded that the balance of Rs. 5,625/- of the bid offered by the petitioner should be paid by him, failing which he threatened to move Collector of Jhunjhunu, the respondent No. 2, for realisation of the said amount under the Act. Later a certificate of public demand No. 7618 R. A. dated 19. 11. 56 was received by the petitioner from the Collector of Jhunjhunu demanding a sum of Rs. 5625 -from him on account of the lease money for the right to collect royalty from the mines in question. This was followed by a letter dated 21st January, 1957, from the Mining Engineer, in which he informed the petitioner that the Director of Mines and Geology, Udaipur, had cancelled his contract with effect from the 24th of December, 1956, and, therefore, the lease money only upto that date was payable, and called upon him to deposit the amount in the Mining Department, failing which action would be taken against him under the Act. Notwithstanding this letter of the Mining Engineer, it appears that the Tehsildar of Jhunjhunu, to whom the certificate proceedings had been transferred for recovery, sent notice to the petitioner on the 1st of February, 1957, calling upon the petitioner to deposit the original sum demanded, that is Rs. 5625/-, and in case of failure to pay, he threatened to attach the property of the petitioner. In the meantime it seems that the petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1875/-, the amount advanced, against the Government on the ground that there was no complete contract between the parties, and that the petitioner having revoked his offer, the money should be refunded to him. This suit has since been decreed in his favour on the ground that as the plaintiff had withdrawn his bid before its final acceptance by the Government, he was entitled to a refund of his money. The petitioner accordingly has moved this Court for quashing the certificate proceedings on the ground that it was not a public demand recoverable under the Act, and that the demand for recovery of Rs. 5625/- was on the face of it illegal because even on the admission of the respondent, the liability extended only upto the 24th of December, 1956. It may be stated here that in the counter - affidavit itself, filed on behalf of the Mining Engineer, it is stated that only Rs. 3604/2/9 is recoverable from the petitioner. Lastly it is contended that his suit having been decreed for recovery of Rs. 1875/-, no certificate could be entertained against him in respect of any such liability under the alleged contract. Under sec. 20 of the Act it is open to a person, who is alleged to have defaulted, to institute a suit for cancellation of the certificate or modification of the same, or for arty further consequential relief to which he may be entitled. The certificate proceeding is thus subject to the result of a suit, and that suit has been decreed in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he had validly revoked his offer, and was entitled to get back the advance paid by him in respect of his bid in connection with this transaction. Even on the admission of the respondent the certificate for recovery of Rs. 5625/- could not be issued against him, because admittedly according to the first respondent, the liability, if at all, was limited to a sum of Rs. 3,604/2/9 only. The Collector does not appear to have modified the certificate in spite of the requisitioning officer having modified the amount of his claim. It is also very doubtful whether in the absence of any valid contract between the parties it is open to the Government to proceed to realise this amount under the Act. Even though in case of a valid contract, the amount may have been recoverable under the rules as a public demand, in the absence of any such contract the petitioner is justified in contending that the provisions of the Act will not be attracted. In view of these circumstances, it must be held that the issue of the certificate of demand for recovery of Rs. 5,625/- against the petitioner is illegal and untenable, and is not justified. We have, therefore, no hesitation in quashing the certificate and making the rule absolute. Since there is an appeal pending against the decree of the Court in the suit filed by the petitioner, we make no order as to the costs of their application. .;