Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that one Iqbal Singh obtained a loan of Rs. 12,000/-in the year 1949 from the Rehabilitation Finance Administration. THE petitioner and Purushottam Singh stood as sureties for repayment of the loan. THE petitioner is a displaced person, and carries on business at Jaipur. THE Collector of Delhi District forwarded the certificate of non-recovery under sec. 3 (1) of the Revenue Recovery Art, 1890, to the Collector, Jaipur, respondent No. 1, on 1st February, 1955, requesting the Collector, Jaipur, to recover a sum of Rs. 10,721/4/- with further interest at 6% p. a. till repayment, from Sardar Iqbal Singh, respondent No. 3. THE petitioner's name was also mentioned in the said certificate at the bottom as surety. THE Tehsildar, Sawai Jaipur, on instructions from the Collector, issued notices to the petitioner on 2nd April, 1955, and 30th April 1955, to deposit the sum of Rs 10,721/4/-in the Tehsil. THE Sub Divisional Officer on 3rd April. 1955, sanctioned attachment of the movable property of the petitioner. THE petitioner challenged the recovery proceedings on various grounds, but only two of them are pressed before us. It was urged that the amount was not payable to the Collector of Delhi, and, therefore, the Collector of Delhi was not authorised to issue the certificate under sec. 3 (1) of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. THE other ground urged was that if that certificate could be said to have been issued in exercise of the power under sec. 5 of that Act, the Collector of Delhi still had no jurisdiction, as the amount was not recoverable by any public officer other than the Collector or any local authority. On behalf of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration it is conceded that the certificate should have been sent by the Collector under sec. 5 of the Act, as the amount was payable not the Collector, but to the Rehabilitation Finance Administration. However, sec. 5 refers to the foregoing provisions, and therefore, the mention of sec. 3 does not invalidate the certificate. The first objection is technical; and by reading sec. 5 with sec. 3, the only defect in the certificate appears to be an omission to mention sec. 5. But if the Collector had jurisdiction to issue a certificate, this is a minor irregularity, and does not materially affect the validity of the certificate. The second objection is more substantial. Sec. 5 of the Act runs as follows: - "where any sum is recoverable as an arrear of land-revenue by any public officer other than a Collector or by any local authority, the Collector of the district in which the office of that officer or authority is situate shall, on the request of the officer or authority, proceed to recover the sum as if it were an arrear of land-revenue which has accrued in his own district and may send a certificate of the amount to be recovered to the Collector of another district under the foregoing provisions of this Act, as if the sum were payable to himself. " The section permits the Collector to recover or to request the Collector of another district to recover the amount, if it was recoverable by any public officer other than the Collector or by any local authority. The amount in the present case is recoverable by Rehabilitaion. Finance Administration. The Rehabilitation Finance Administration is a corporation created by the Rehablitation Finance Administration Act, 1948. Under sec. 3 (2) of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration Act the Corporation is to be a body corporate by the name of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power, subject to the provisions of the Act, to acquire, hold and transfer property, both movable and immovable and is by the said name to sue and be sued. Under sec. 11, the Central Government is authorised to advance money to the Administration for its business, and the interest chargeable from the Administration is mentioned to be at the rate of 3%. Sec. 12 refers to the business of the Administration, which is to advance loans, subject to the provisions of sec. 13, and to guarantee, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon, losses which a scheduled bank may suffer in respect any loan advanced by it and approved by the Administration. Under sec. 13 the interest of chargeable by the Administration is not to exceed 6% p. a. Under sec. 21 the applicability of the law relating to insolvency or winding up of companies or corporations is barred, but in the event; of the Administration being placed in liquidation under orders of the Central Government, the assets of the Administration, after meeting the liabilities, if any, are directed to vest in the Central Government, and the Central Government is declared thereafter to have all the powers of the Administration in recovering the loans remaining unpaid. The mode of recovery is provided in sec. 15 of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration Act as follows: - "15. (1) If the amount of loan or any instalment thereof interest thereon which is due, in accordance with the terms of the contract or under the provisions of sec. 14, has not been repaid the Administration may, - (a) without prejudice to any other remedy provided by law, recover such loan, instalment of interest as arrears of land revenue, or (b) take charge of the business or industry of the borrower on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit. " It was urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the Rehabilitation Finance Administration was performing a public duty, which was to advance loans to displaced persons in order to rehabilitate them, and in any case, the ultimate point where the funds would go would be the. Central Government. Then reliance was placed on sec. 15, which provided for the recovery of loans as arrears of land revenue. The first argument would have had some force, if the Rehabilitation Finance Administration would have been only an agent for distribution of Government money. As it happens, it is a body corporate to which loan is advanced by the Government, and the Rehabilitation Finance Administration on its own authority, subject of course to directions which may be given to it by the Government from time to time, advances loans, and the body corporate is to get the profit or suffer the loss in its business. In the event of liquidation, no doubt the funds will vest in the Government, but unless that contingency arises, the funds will; remain the property of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration. While sec. 15 no doubt provides for the recovery of the loan or interest as arrears of land revenue, the Revenue Recovery Act has to be looked into for seeing whether the Rehabilitation Finance Administration, comes within the category of a "public officer" or "local authority" on whose request alone the Collector can act. The words "public officer" are not defined in the Revenue Recovery Act, but a good workable definition is to be found in sec. 2 (17) of the Civil Procedure Code, which is as follows: - Public officer means a person falling under any of the following descriptions, namely : - (a) every Judge: (b) every member of the Indian Civil Service; (c) every commissioned or gazetted officer in the military, naval or air forces of the Union while serving under the Government; (d) every officer of a Court of Justice whose duty it is, as such officer to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, or to make, authenticate or keep any document, or to take charge or dispose of any property, or to execute any judicial process, or to administer any oath, or to interpret, or to preserve order, in the Court, and every person especially authorised by a Court of Justice to perform any of such duties; (e) every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement; (f) every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience; (g) every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Government to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Government, or to execute any revenue process, or to investigate, or to report on, any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the Government; and (h) every officer in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty. " There is some difference of opinion as to whether a corporation can be a public officer, but in view of the definition of "person" in the General Clauses Act, a corporation can be a person, and the public officer is a person who discharges public duties. Whether the duties performed by the Rehabilitation Finance Administration are public duties or otherwise, have to be seen not from the point of view whether it activities benefit certain class of persons, but whether its activities amount to a public duty at all. Sec. 12 refers to the business of the Administration which is to advance loans or to guarantee losses, and to do other consequential acts including the running of the Administration. The Rehabilitation Administration being a body corporate does not form a Government department, although its chairman or the members may be appointed or nominated by the Government under sec. 4, and certain information is to be supplied to the Government and certain advice of the Government has to be followed by the Administration. A careful consideration of the business of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration leaves no room in our minds to doubt the proposition that it is not a public officer. It does not, at any rate, come within any of the descriptions of public officer given in sec. 2 (17) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which as stated earlier, gives a fairly good definition of the words "public officer". If the Rehabilitation Finance Administration is not a public officer, as held above, the Collector of Delhi was not authorised to take steps for the recovery of the loan at the instance of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration under the Revenue Recovery Act. The action of the Collector, Jaipur and under his instructions of the Tehsildar, Sawai Jaipur, towards recovery of the said loan outstanding against Iqbal Singh is without authority, and the attachment of the property made by the Tehsildar is invalid. Any further steps to sell the property in these proceedings shall not be taken. This will not prevent any action being taken for the recovery of the loan in any other manner authorised by law. The petition is allowed. The respondent, Rehabilitation Finance Administration, Delhi, will pay costs to the petitioner. . ;