DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, U.P. AND ORS. v. DEEP CHAND AGGARWAL

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1015

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: D.A. DESAI, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH

Case summary

-This appeal by certificate involves the question whether section 3 of the Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1965 (U. This Court held that the amounts could be recovered by the State of Rajasthan after the Bank had become vested in it as a public demand under the...

Judgment text

DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, U. P. AND ORS. v. DEEP CHAND AGGARWAL February 6, 1980 [D. A. DESAI AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ. ] • Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1965 (U. P. Act No. XXV of 1965) Section 3-Whether offends Article -14 of tl:e Constitution. A sum of Rs. 15000/- \Vas advanced to the Re~:pon OR15 [1980] 2 s. c. R. A less than the courts, do not function in a vacuum. It would be extremely unreal to hold that an administrative officer would in laking proceedings for eviction of unauthorised occupants of Government proporty or Municipal property resort to the procedure prescribed by the two Acts in one case and to tbc ordinary Civil Courts in the other. The pro- B visions of these two Acts cannot be struck down on the fanciful theory that power would be exercised in such an unrealistic fashion. In considering whether the officers would be discriminating between one set of persons and another, one '•-.

:' has got to take into account normal human behaviour and not behaviour which is abnormal. It is not every fancied c ·possibility of discrimination but the real risk of discrimination that we must take into account. This is not one orf those cases where discrimination i~ writ large on the face of the statute. Discrimination may be possible but is very improbable. And if there is discrimination in actual practice this D Court is not powerless. Furthermore, the fact that the Legislature considered that the ordinary procedure is insuffi- • cient or ineffective in evicting unauthorised occupants of Government and Corporation property and provided a special speedy procedure therefor is a clear guidance for the authorities charged with the duty of evicting unauthorised occu- E pants. We therefore, find ourselves unable to agree with the majority in the Northern India Caterers' case.

Certain provisions similar to the Act impugned in this case enabling a State Government to recover the amounts due to it by resorting to a speedier remedy have been upheld by this Court in two cases--Shri F Manna Lal & Anr. v. Collector of Jhalawar & Ors. (') aT'd Lachhman Das 011 behalf of firm Tilak Ram Ram Bux v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2). Jn the case of Shri Ma11na Lal & Anr. (supra) the facts, were these : The Jhalawar State Bank was originally a Bauk belonging to the princely State o[ Jhalawar. Its assets, including moneys due to it, became vested in the United State of Rajasthan under the convenant G executed by the Ruler -Of Jhalawar along wi~h other Rulers by which the United State of Rajasthan was formed. On the promulgation of the Constitution of India, the United State of Rajasthan became the State of Rajasthan in the Indian Union and all its assets including the Jhalawar State Bank and its dues vested in the State of Rajas'. han.

In that case the question which arose for consideration was whether H (I) [1961] 2S. C. R. 962. (2) [1963] 2 S. C. R. 353. ·~ DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES v. DEEP CHAND (Venkataramiah, J. ) l 023 moneys which had been advanced by the Jhalawar State Bank could I be recovered by taking pr9ceedings under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. This Court held that the amounts could be recovered by the State of Rajasthan after the Bank had become vested in it as a public demand under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act and that the said Act did not offend Article 14 of the Constitution even though it provided a special facility to the Government as a banker for the recovery of the bank's dues for the Government could legitimately be put in a separate class for this purpose. In the latter case i. e.

the case of Lachhman Das on behalf of Firm Tilnk Ram Ram Bux (supra), the right of Patiala State Bank to recover the amounts due to it under the provisions of the Patiala c· Recovery of State Dues Act was questioned. This Court hdd that the Bank established by a State had distinctive features which differ· entiated it from other Banks and formed a category in itself and the Act in setting up separate authorities for determination of disputes and in prescribing a special procedure to be followed by them for the recovery of the dues by summary process could not be considered to be discriminatory. • We are, therefore, of the \'tiew that section 3 of the Act which enables the State Government to recover the sums advanced under the circumstances mentioned therein as if they were arrears of land revenue cannot be held to be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. Since the High Court disposed of the case on the basis of the decision of this Court in Northern India Caterers Private Ltd. & Anr. (supra) ~. · which has since been overruled, We make no order as to co,. sts. I V. D. K. Appeal allowed. r 11-138 SCI/80