- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the Addl. Collector, Chittorgarh dated 21-1-70, whereby he rejected the objection of the applicant that the order of his predecessor dated 19-6-69 was vitiated as the certificate required by law under sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act had not been filed in the office of the Collector.
(2.) THE learned c|ounsel for the applicant has taken me through the scheme of the Public Demands Recovery Act. By virtue of sec. 3 of the Act when any public demand is due, the officer or authority charged with its realisation may send to the Collector having jurisdiction in the place where the defaulter resides or owns property a written requisition in the prescribed form. Under sec. 4 on receipt of any such requisition, the Collector if he is satisfied that the demand is recoverable under this Act and that its recovery by suit is not barred by any law for the time being in force, may sign a certificate to that effect in the prescribed form specifying therein the amount of the demand, the account on which it is due, the name of the defaulter and such other particulars as may be necessary for his identification and shall cause the certificate to be filed in his office. THEreafter sec. 6 comes into play and prescribes that when a certificate has been filed under sec 4 or transmitted under sec. 5, the Collector in whose office it has been so filed or to whose office it has been so transmitted shall cause to be served upon the defaulter in the prescribed manner a notice in the prescribed form along with a copy of the certificate. Under sec. 8 the defaulter may within thirty days from the service of the notice under sec. 6 or where the notice has not been duly served within thirty days from execution of any process for enforcing the certificate present to the Collector issuing the notice a petition in the prescribed form signed and verified in the prescribed manner denying the liability in whole or in part. Under sub-section 3 the Collector in whose office the certificate was originally filed shall hear and determine the petition and may set aside, modify or vary the certificate, if necessary in accordance with his decision. Sec. 10 lay down that a certificate may be executed by the Collector in whose office it is originally filed under sec 4. Under sec. 11 a Collector in whose office a certificate is filed under sec. 4 or to whom a copy of the certificate is transmitted under sec. 5 may send it for execution to any Assistant Collector or Tehsildar subordinate to him provided that no action under this section shall be taken until after the expiry of thirty days since the service or notice under sec. 6 or when a petition has been presented under sec. 8 until after its final determination. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Collector having failed to take action under sac. 4, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. In support of his contention he has drawn my attention to M/s. Associated Stone Industries vs. Mining Engineer (1959 RRD page 116) and Purshottam vs. Govt. of Rajasthan (1969 RRD page 122 ). It was held in the first case that there should be proper description of the name and address of defaulter and nature of Govt. dues and items giving rise to them and period for which demand made must be stated. These formalities must be observed. The defect in issuing certificate or making requisitions are not mere irregularities which may be overlooked. It was further held that the satisfaction of the certifying officer to the effect that public demand is due is a condition precedent to the exercise of powers given to him under the Act. Where the order under sec. 4 is passed without any such satisfaction on his part or on the so called satisfaction which is arbitrary and not based on any material, his order will be without jurisdiction. (AIR 1955 Patna 49) This authority (RRD 1959 page 116) further goes on to say that sec. 4 of the Act lays down that on receiving a requisition, the Collector shall sign a certificate if he is satisfied that the demand is recoverable under the Act and its recovery is not barred by law. The authority to take action under the Act is based on the certificate. Where there is no proper certificate there is no foundation for further action. Where the Collector passed a routine order for registering the case and issuing notice without satisfying the aforesaid matters, the certificate was held to be a nullity. A similar view was taken by me in the second case. Following the rule laid down in Rajhumal vs. State (1957 RLW page 370), it was held that since the certificate did not contain particulars such as the period of dues it suffered from serious infirmities and the result of their failure was bound to be fatal. In reply, the learned Government Advocate has argued that the omission to file a certificate u/s. 4 is not fatal particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was filed as envisaged u/s. 23a by the applicant against the order 19-6- 69 u/s. 8 of the Act. It is argued that this challenge cannot be raised at this stage of execution. I am not prepared to accept this reasoning. If the very foundation of the action under the P. D. R. Act is shaky, any action taken in such proceedings would be per se void. It was held in the case of Rajhumal vs. State that there are four essential requirements which are the foundation for proceedings under the P. D. Act. These essentials are: (1) that the demand should be one covered by the Schedule of the Act. (2) that there is a requisition as required under sec. 3 unless the case is covered by Sec. 4 (2 ). (3) that there is a certificate in strict compliance with sec. 4 and (4) that a notice has been served under sec. 6 on the defaulter, It was observed in that case that if any of these conditions is not present there is a patent lack of jurisdiction in the Collector to proceed under the Act. In that case the certificate was issued by the D. S. O. The learned Judge held that it was necessary that full designation of the authority should be mentioned so that the defaulter may know who is the person who is calling him a defaulter. In this case the amount due was mentioned and it was said that this represented the cost of Government grain issued to him but the period for which the demand was due was not mentioned and it was not shown when the grain was supplied. The learned Judges found that the lack of mention of the period for which the sum was due was a substantial defect which invalidated the certificate. Needless to say that if the lack of the mention of the period for which the sum was due was held to be a substantial defect which invalidated the certificate, the absence of the certificate altogether should be held to be a far more serious defect, and it must be held that the entire proceedings suffer from lack of jurisdiction. Such an objection can certainly be raised at the state of execution. Under the circumstances, I am constrained to reject the plea of the Govt. Advocate and accept this revision petition. This will, however, not debar the Collector from proceedings ab initio from taking action u/s. 4 and proceeding with the matter afresh. . ;