- (1.) THIS revision under Sec. 23-C of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act has been filed against am appellate order of the Commissioner Kota dated 15. 2. 60 upholding the original order of the Additional Collector dated 8. 10. 59 whereby the objections of the applicant were rejected.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. A requisition was filed by the Deputy Commissioner Civil Supplies, Kota on 9. 11. 53 against the applicant under Sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act before the Collector Kota for recovery of Rs. 22,864/-/9. A certificate under Sec. 4 of the Act was filed by the Collector on 7. 12. 53. Notice under Sec. 6 of the Act was served on the applicant on 28. 12. 53. On 25. 1. 54 the applicant filed an objection denying his liability under of the Act and the same was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Kota. A reference to the order sheet shows that on 21. 10. 55 this case was taken up by Shri Hajarilal Mehta, Additional Collector who ultimately rejected the petition of the applicant on 30. 12. 55. It may be observed here that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to decide this objection on 30. 12. 55 as the Government Notification delegating powers of a Collector to Additional Collectors under the Act was issued subsequently. It may also be observed here that on 30. 12. 55 no provision existed in the Act for an appeal or a revision, Chapter VA being added in the Act by Sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Act No. 25 of 1956 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 26. 7. 56. The applicant thereafter filed a civil suit in the court of the District Judge, Kota which was subsequently transferred to the court of the Civil Judge Bundi for cancellation of the certificate issued under Sec. 4 of the Act and for a declaration that the final order dated 30. 12. 55 (order of Shri Hajarilal Mehta Additional Collector referred to above) was illegal. A number of issues were framed by the learned civil court in this case. One of them was as to whether Shri Hajarilal Mehta was authorised to hear the objections of the applicant or not. Another issue related to the effect of the certificate. As regards the first issue the learned civil court held that the Commissioner had authorised the Additional Collector to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the Collector on 13. 2. 56, that the said authorisation could not have any retrospective effect and that the order in dispute being passed on 30. 12. 55 was illegal and ultra vires. As regards the other point it was held that the certificate was valid and needed no cancellation. It was further held that as no proper notice was given by the applicant under Sec. 80 C. P. C. with regard to the cancellation of the order of the Additional Collector dated 30. 12. 55 the civil court would not be justified in granting him any relief in that respect as will. The suit was, therefore, dismissed on 30. 5. 59. Thereafter on 15. 7. 59 the applicant appeared before the Collector Kota with an application to the effect that the order dated 30. 12. 52 of the Additional Collector had been held by the civil court to be without jurisdiction and hence proceedings should be started afresh from that stage. The learned Additional Collector rejected this objection with the observation that the applicant had lost the civil suit in the ultimate result and even if a solitary finding may be in his favour he cannot be allowed to take advantage of it. It was also observed that the certificate and the proceedings thereafter were held to be valid by the civil court and hence it was not open to the applicant to raise this question. The applicant went up in appeal against this order before the learned Commissioner who rejected the same with the observation that as the civil suit was dismissed no remedy was left to the applicant. If the applicant was dissatisfied with the findings of the civil court he could have gone in appeal and as he had not done so it was not open to him to raise any objections before the Collector. Evidently both the lower courts omitted to appreciate not only the decision of the civil court but also the objections of the applicant as well. The civil court unequivocally held that the order of the Additional Collector Kota dated 30. 12. 55 rejecting the petition presented by the applicant under sec. 8 of the Act was ultra vires of him as he was not invested with the powers of a Collector on that date. The certificate issued under sec, 4 was, however, held valid. But the lower courts seem to have confused both these affairs. The applicant had challenged the certificate as well as the order dated 30. 12. 55. He was unsuccessful in respect of the first item but was successful in respect of the second item. The suit, however, failed for want of a proper notice under sec. 80 CPC. But as far as the order dated 30. 12. 55 is concerned the civil court had clearly held that it was an order by an unauthorised person. In other words, the irresistible inference would therefore be that there is no decision on the petition denying liability under sec. 9 of the Act and unless this is done further proceedings cannot be carried out in the case. In this connection we may refer to AIR 1957 Calcutta 430. In that case one Shri D. K. Ghosh dealt with the objection under sec. 9 of the Act and passed an order dismissing the same sometime in Dec. 1953. It was eventually found that Mr. D. K. Ghosh was not properly appointed Certificate Officer while he dealt with the objection under sec. 9 of the Act. After examining the case law on that point Sinha, J. was pleased to observe that it was settled law both in England and in India that the decision of a court without jurisdiction was void and amounted to a nullity and as the objection filed by the petitioner under sec. 9 was considered by a person who was not a Certificate Officer and therefore was not to be considered a judicial body or a tribunal but merely a man in the street. The learned counsel for the opposite party has frankly conceded his inability to show before us that on 30. 12. 55 Shri Hajarimal Mehta had the authority to exercise the powers of a Collector. The result therefore is that the order passed by Shri Hajarimal Mehta on 30. 12. 55 is a nullity and that the petition of the applicant denying liability under Sec. 8 is thus without any valid decision which could be given by the Collector under sec. 9 of the Act. We, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower courts and remand the case to the Collector Kota with the direction that he himself should decide the applicant's petition presented under sec. 8 of the Act afresh in the light of the observations made above. .;