IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7885 of 2007 SUBODH PANDEY, son of Sri Chandeshwar Pandey, resident of village – Rampur Dayal, P.S. Piyar, District – Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., Budha Marg, Patna through the Managing Director. 2. The Managing Director, The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Ltd. Budha Marg, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Manager cum Certificate Officer, Land Development Bank, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Branch Manager, Land Development Bank, Sakara Branch, District – Muzaffarpur. ----------- 03. 29/3/2010 Petitioner does not dispute that he was granted a loan of Rs.2 Lacs on 7.10.1997 by the respondent Bihar State Co- operative Development Bank. He states that he is an agriculturist and the loan was disbursed as part of promotional scheme to encourage agriculture. It is the case of the petitioner that repayments have been made from time to time but the bank has worked out a liability and outstanding dues against the petitioner and filed a case under the Public Demands Recovery Act for recovery of a sum of Rs.51920/-. A notice under section 7 of the Act was also issued to the petitioner which would be evident from Annexure-2. Besides other objections counsel for the petitioner submits that this money is not recoverable as a public demand. “Public demand” has been defined in section 3 (6) to mean any arrear or money mentioned or referred to in Schedule 1, and includes any interest which may, by law, be chargeable thereon upto the date on which a certificate is signed under Part II. 2 To make a demand as a public demand Schedule 1 will have to be looked into. No other clause of Schedule 1 has relevance as such except clause 15 of Schedule 1. May be by a reading of clause 15 (iii) the demand may be deemed to be a public demand in so far as it relates to the respondents but to make it so the person liable to pay the same has to agree by a written instrument that it shall be recoverable as a public demand. In absence of a written agreement merely because the money is due to the respondent Land Development Bank, it does not become a public demand. Petitioner denies executing any agreement to that effect and it is in this background that the respondent bank was directed to produce the original agreement. The agreement produced by the bank before the Court has been perused. A bare reading of the said agreement would show that it is an agreement for mortgaging the property of the petitioner against the loan amount. None of the clauses of the said agreement any where states that this loan amount is recoverable as a public demand. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has filed a counter affidavit and submits that whatever action has been taken has been taken on the basis of the loan granted to the petitioner and is in accordance with law. But when the Court wanted a categorical statement on their behalf whether there is an agreement in existence between the petitioner and them for effecting recovery of the loan amount as a public demand, he 3 submits that the agreement states all and nothing more can be read into the same beyond what is there on record. In absence of any clause or agreement having been produced by the respondents in terms of clause 15 (iii), the Court has no hesitation in recording that there could be a loan outstanding against the petitioner and the petitioner may have a liability to pay back the loan but for which a proceeding under the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act cannot be maintained. In view of the factual and legal position the certificate proceeding initiated against the petitioner, which is Certificate Case No. 11262 of 2000-01 stands quashed. However, quashing of the certificate proceeding does not mean that respondents have no remedy. If civil laws are available to the respondents to effect recovery , they may do so. The writ application is allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )