Untwalia, C.J.

1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the companies Act, 1956, and owns a sugar mill situated at Harkhua in the district of Siwan. A large amount of money became due from the petitioner on account of cane supplied to its mill by canegrowers. Under the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase). Second Ordinance, 1972 (Bihar Ordinance 110 of 1972) arrears of the price of cane with interest thereon became recoverable as public demand or arrears of land revenue. The Collector therefore signed a certificate in Form No. 1 for realisation of Rs. 1,37,736,58P, on account of price of cane due to the cane-growers. To this certificate was also appended a certificate from the certificate officer, Chapra, and both are contained in Annexure 1/1. The petitioner obtained a rule from this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the quashing of the certificate Proceeding, the certificate or requisition contained in Annexure 1/1 and the notice (Annexure 1) issued under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, namely, the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, and the Cane Officer asserting that the certificate proceeding is valid

3. Mr. K.D. Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged the following points to Persuade us to invalidate the certificate and the certificate proceeding in this case, (1) that a requisition in Form No. 2 in accordance with Section 5 of the Act ought to have been sent to the Certificate officer verified in accordance with Rule 1 of the Rules mentioned in Schedule II appended to the Act; (2) that the dues payable to the canegrowers could not be treated as dues payable to the Collector and no certificate In accordance with Section 4 of the Act could be filed in this case; and (3) that the certificate contained in Annexure 1/1 is Invalid, as it is neither in accordance with Section 4 nor with Section 5 of the Act.

4. The proceedings were started when Bihar Ordinance 110 of 1972 was in force. It may be mentioned here, although no argument was advanced with reference to this fact, that the said ordinance was replaced by subsequent Ordinances, and the last one which was in vogue at the time of the hearing of the writ case was the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and purchase) Ordinance. 1973 (Bihar Ordinance No. 47 of 1973). Clause 43 of the Ordinance has been the same in all the Ordinances and provides for the payment of price of cane. Sub-clause (2) (i) says that as soon as cane is supplied to a factory, the occupier of such factory shall be liable to pay the price of the cane so supplied. The factory is liable to pay interest at the rate specified in Section 51 from the date of the supply in accordance with Sub-clause (2) (ii). Apart from the fact that the occupier of the factory has been made criminally liable under Sub-clause (5) of Clause 43 of the Ordinance, Sub-clause (6) provides:

"Any arrears of the price of cane, with interest thereon, if any shall be recoverable as public demand or arrears of land revenue."

"Public Demands" are of two kinds. The expression is defined in Section 3 (6) of the Act to mean "any arrear or money mentioned or referred to in Schedule I, and includes any interest which may, by law, be chargeable thereon up to the date on which a certificate is signed under Part II." In Schedule I, item 1 is any arrear of revenue which remains due in the circumstances narrated therein Item 2 also is any arrear of revenue which is due from a farmer on account of an estate held by him in farm. Item 3 is important for our purpose: it says:

"Any money which is declared by any law for the time being in force to be recoverable or realizable as an arrear of revenue or land-revenue, or by the process authorized for the recovery of arrears of revenue or of the Public revenue or of Government revenue."

Then, item 4 is any money which is declared by any enactment for the time being in force to be a demand or public demand; or to be recoverable as arrears of a demand or public demand, or as a demand or public demand, or to be recoverable under the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1868. It would thus be seen that a law may declare any money to be recoverable or realisable as an arrear of land revenue or simply as a public demand. It is not disputed that arrears of land revenue are payable to the Collector. It is therefore, clear that the two expressions used in Clause 43 (6) of the Ordinance permit the recovery of the arrears of the price of cane as public demand or as arrears of land revenue. If it is simply a public demand, then the certificate holders will be either the canegrowers or may be officers of the Cane Department of the Government of Bihar. But if arrears of the price of cane are sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue, then surely they are sought to be recovered as a public demand payable to the Collector -- a demand which is squarely covered by item 3 of Schedule I.. That being so the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner that there ought to have been a requisition for a certificate in accordance with Section 5 signed and verified, as required by Rule 1 of the Rules is not correct Here, the arrears of cane price were sought to be recovered, it is clear, by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. The Collector is primarily a certificate officer within the meaning of Section 3 (2) of the Act, and the certificate officer, who really is in charge of the certificate proceedings is an officer appointed by the Collector with the sanction of the Commissioner to Perform the functions of a certificate Officer under the Act. It is in this background that the certificate in this case contained in Annexure 1/1 has got to be judged.

5. Form No. 1 appended to the Rules is a certificate of public demand in accordance with Section 4. The first and the main Part including all the columns of the certificate (Annexure 1/1) are exactly in this Form. At page 57 of the Bihari Certificate Manual, 1954, in Form No. 1 is also appended a certificate which is to be signed by the Certificate Officer, if a requisition is sent to him under Section 5 of the Act. Strictly speaking, this latter portion ought to have formed part of Form No. 2 which is the form of requisition for a certificate under Section 5. It seems that because of the wrong placing of the latter certificate in Form No. 1, Annexure 1/1 also contains a certificate in that form signed by the Certificate officer. But this does not invalidate the certificate or the proceeding as, in similar circumstances, it was held by a Bench of this court in Dwarka Ram Jagatrenka v. State of Bihar 1963 BLJR 655) that it is a mere irregularity. The certificate contained in Annexure 1/1 bears the signature of the Collector who is the certificate Officer and it also bears the signature of the Certificate Officer, who is an officer appointed by the Collector to perform the functions of the Certificate Officer. In my opinion, therefore, the latter part of the recital of the certificate can very well be ignored and treated as a mere irregularity, and the certificate contained in Annexure 1/1 is a certificate in Form No. 1 in accordance with Section 4 of the Act.

6. Mr. Chatterji cited two decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his contention that even though arrears of cane price could be recovered as arrears of land revenue arrears of cane price could not be treated as arrears of land revenue for all purposes, and, therefore, could not be treated as Payable to the Collector. The citations are the Padrauna Raj Krishna Sugar Works Ltd. v. Land Reforms Commr. (AIR 1960 SC 897) and Builders Supply Corporation v. Union of India (: AIR 1965 SC 1061 [LQ/SC/1964/342] ). It is no doubt true that providing for the mode of recovery of certain dues as arrears of land revenue cannot make the dues as arrears of land revenue. Such dues cannot be treated as arrears of land revenue for all purposes. Such an argument advanced before the Supreme Court in the case of the Padrauna Raj Krishna Sugar Works Ltd. : AIR 1969 SC 897 [LQ/SC/1969/32] , was repelled. Similar was the observation of the Supreme Court in paragraph 28 in the case of M/s. Builders Supply Corporation, : AIR 1965 SC 1061 [LQ/SC/1964/342] Gajendragadkar, C. J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the court, said in that paragraph with reference to Section 46 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922:

"This provision cannot be said to convert arrears of tax into arrears of land revenue either; all that it purports to do is to indicate that after receiving the certificate from the Income Tax Officer, the Collector has to proceed to recover the arrears in question as if the said arrears were arrears of land revenue."

In my opinion, the obsevations of Gajendragadkar, C. J. extracted above, repeal the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner. If on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Padrauna Raj Krishna Sugar Works Ltd. (: AIR 1969 SC 897 [LQ/SC/1969/32] ) it were to be held that even though arrears of cane price can be recovered as arrears of land revenue, still they cannot be deemed to be payable to the Collector, then nothing would be left for recovering the arrears of cane price as arrears of land revenue. The only distinction between the mode of recovery of a public demand simpliciter not payable to the Collector and arrears of land revenue payable to the Collector is between the different modes of filing the certificate, one under Section 4 and the other in accordance with Sections 5 and 6 of the Act. The difference in items 2 and 4 of Schedule I appended to the Act will vanish if the arguments on behalf of the petitioner were to be accepted as correct. I have, therefore, no difficulty in rejecting this argument and in holding that when the ordinance provides for the recovery of arrears of cane price as arrears of land revenue it provides that the arrears will be payable to the Collector who will recover it as arrears of land revenue for the benefit of the different cane growers.

7. For the reasons stated above this writ application fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

S.K. Jha, J.

I agree.