Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by Madanlal and Ram Gopal under Art 226 of the Constitution of India against the Collector of Jhalawar challenging the validity of the proceedings under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act (No. 5 of 1952 ).
(2.) A certificate was filed in the office of the Collector of Jhalawar on the 16th of June, 1953, against the petitioners for an amount of Rs. 2,24. 607/6/6 including interest up to the 31st of March, 1952, in respect of certain loans advanced by the Jhalawar State Bank. Certain movable properties of the petitioners were attached by the Collector of Jhalawar under proviso to sec. 12 of the aforesaid Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' ). The petitioners have come to this court with a number of grounds impugning the proceedings regarding recovery of the arrears of State dues under the certificate of the Collector or Jhalawar. Certain provision of the Rajasthan State Dues Recovery Act were also impugned as being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party heard this application along with several others which were similar to it and decided a number of points which were common to them all. Having determined those points the Bench directed that individual cases be again listed for hearing for decision of such points as may be peculiar to each one of such cases. In consequence of that direction this case has come up for hearing before us. The only point that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the certificate filled in the office of the Collector of Jhalawar under sec. 4 of the Act is defective and illegal inasmuch as no period in Col. 4 for which such demand was due as required by Form No. 2 prescribed by the Government under the rules made under sec. 29 of the Act has been mentioned. The learned counsel has placed his reliance on this point on the decisions in Abanindra Kumar Malty vs. A. K. Biswas (l) and Baijnath Sahai vs. Ramgut Singh (2 ). Mr Dutt appearing on behalf of the opposite side has urged that this point which has now been pressed by the learned counsel was never raised in the original petition or in its amendment. Moreover, he has replied that this omission to mention the period in Col. 4. referred to above, is not a serious disregard of the provisions of law rendering the certificate invalid in the particular circumstances of this case when the petitioners were well aware of the loans borrowed by them from the State Bank of Jhalawar. It may be noted here that the petitioners have not taken up this point either in their original petition or in the petition of amendment. This is more or less a point of law and we have, therefore, allowed the petitioners to raise it at this stage of the proceedings. The observations in the judgment in the Calcutta case referred to above are as follows: - " (19) The second ground of attack on the validity of the certificate is that it does not mention the period for which the demand is due but merely mentions the amount of the Form of the Certificate requires that it should mention not only the amount of the public demand but also the period for which such demand is due. The omission to mention the period, therefore, amounts to a non-compliance with the requirements of the second column. The learned Senior Government Pleader argued that it was not necessary to mention the period as it was known to the assessee. We cannot accept this contention. If it was not necessary to mention the period for which the demand was due, it is difficult to realise why it should be expressly provided in the second column that the period should be mentioned. Moreover, in other to given the assessee a proper notice of the tax liability, it is, in our opinion, absolutely essential to infrom him of the period for which it is due. " It may be pointed out that in the Calcutta case the certificate was defective on a number of grounds and this was one of them that the period was not specified as required by the Form of Certificate. The learned Judges only observed that failure to specify the period as required by the Form was a non-compliance with the requirements of the Form. The court, however, did not go to the length of saying that the certificate was rendered invalid merely for this reason. In that case there were other serious defects in the certificate and the decision of the Court, therefore cannot be attributed to be the defect that has been raised by the petitioners before this Court. The Form No. 2 prescribed by the rules made under sec. 29 of the Act is as follows: - FORM NO. 2 Certificate of Public Demand, (See Sec. 4) Filled in the office of the Collector of - (name of the district ). No. of Certificate. Name and address of authority sending requisition. Name and address of defaulter. Amount of public demand including interest if any, for which this certificate is signed and period for which such demand is due. Further particulars of the public demand for which this certificate is signed. 1 2 3 4 5 I hereby certify that the above mention sum of Rs. above named. is due from the I further certify that the above mentioned sum of Rs. verable and that its recovery by the suit is not barred by law. Dated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . this day of. . . . . . . . 19 is justly reco- A. B. Collector. It would be apparent that under Col. 4 of the Form the period for which such demand is due has got to be specified. The Collector is expected to draw up this certificate on the basis of the particulars furnished by the officer sending the requisition for recovery under sec. 3 in Form No. 1 of the Rules. We find that in the form of requisition the particular regarding the period does not appear. It may be that the. Forms under the Rules expect the Collector to make an independent inquiry himself in this behalf in order to fill in this particular item in the certificate. We may point out that failure to comply with every minute minor detail of the certificate cannot be regarded to have the effect of invalidating it. We should not be understood when we say so to mean that the authority signing the certificate is absolved from faithfully carrying out the provisions of law. It is very desirable that the officer who is to discharge the heavy responsibility of filling such a certificate should try strictly to comply with the requirements of the Form, specially because the certificate is prepared and signed ex parte and it has the effect of the passing of a decree against the person against whom it is signed. However, as pointed out above in the present case failure on the part of the Collector of Jhalawar to mention the period in Col. 4 of the Certificate cannot be regarded to be an irregularity which may be considered to go to the root of the case. No prejudice appears to have been caused to the petitioners for this reason. In specifying the amount and its interest 31st of March, 1952, has been stated which atleast shows unmistakably that the amount specified in Col. 4 must have remained unpaid atleast from that date onwards. In view of this specification it can be said that the requirement of the rules has not been totally ignored. Further more this is a case in which the petitioner is said to have obtained loans from the State Bank of Jhalawar from time to time and it cannot be assumed that he was ignorant of the loans contracted by him. In the other case that has been cited at the bar no certificate whatsoever under the Public Demands Recovery Act was filed and it was in that context that their Lordships made the remarks which have been reproduced in the Calcutta case referred to above. That case is distinguishable for this reason. In the present case, the certificate is defective only to the extent that the Collector of Jhalawar failed to specify expressly the period in Col. 4 of the Form of Certificate. The learned counsel has not been able to show how this defect has prejudiced the petitioners. We do not find any force in the contention that has been raised before us. This application is dismissed with costs. . ;