Judgment & Order (Cav)

1. Heard Mr. A. S. Tapader, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel Forest Department, for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 6 & 7.

2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the communication dated 26.05.2025, issued by the Certificate Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, whereby an outstanding government dues amounting to Rs. 3,51,200/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred) only has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner and thereby directed to deposit the said amount, failing which the movable and immovable property of the petitioner shall be attached and warrant of arrest will be issued against him.

3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara put up a sale notice in the year 2003 for the Domoni River Sand Mahal for the period of 2 (two) years from 2003 to 2005. The petitioner, being eligible, participated in the sale process by submitting his tender. Having found that the petitioner has not submitted Income Tax and Sale Tax Clearance Certificate, which is a mandatory requirement under the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahal Rules, 1977 (herein after “the Mahal Rules, 1977”, in short), the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara, directed the petitioner to submit the said certificates, which was submitted subsequently by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, vide letter dated 31.07.2003, informed the petitioner that the Domini River Sand Mahal for 2003 to 2005 is settled with him at his offered value of Rs. 2,81,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty one thousand) only for 2 (two) years against 5000 cubic metres from the date of issuance of the letter and directed the petitioner to deposit the security amount and 1st Kist of the Mahal within 7 (seven) days and to sign the agreement and in the event of failure to deposit the security money and Kist, Mahal will be put to Risk Sale at the risk of the petitioner as per the condition of relevant sale notice.

4. On receipt of the settlement letter, the petitioner submitted representation dated 30.10.2003 to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Guwahati, praying for reduction of the quantity by 50% as in the nearest 2 Mahals, the quantity does not exceeds 1000 Cubic Metre annually and the other Mahals were settled with the less quantity, but in respect of Domini Sand Mahal, the quantity is 2500 Cubic Metre annually. The petitioner neither deposited the security amount and kist nor signed the agreement.

5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara, vide letter dated 15.11.2003 to the Conservator of Forests, Central Assam Circle, has sought for his advice as to whether the Mahal should be put to risk sale again or should be put to fresh sale. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer has issued the risk sale notice for settlement of the said Sand Mahal, however, no tender was received against risk sale notice, even after repeated notices vide dated 22.01.2024, 19.04.2024 & 23.07.2024 against the quantity of 5000 cubic metre. The petitioner submitted various representations to the Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial) Assam for reducing the quantity of Mahal. However, the said request for reduction of the quantity was neither rejected nor accepted.

6. Pursuant to the representation dated 05.08.2004 submitted by the petitioner, the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment & Forest Department, vide letter dated 11.08.2004, asked the Divisional Forest Officer for furnishing the detail report thereby stayed the risk sale notice issued by the respondent No. 4.

7. The Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara, vide letter dated 17.08.2005, requested the Bakijai Officer, Goalpara for taking necessary steps against the petitioner for realization of amount of Rs. 2,78,000/- from the petitioner. Thereafter, vide another letter dated 19.03.2006, the respondent No. 4 requested the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara (Bakijai Branch) for issuance of certificate against the petitioner. Accordingly, a Bakijai case was initiated under Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, being Bakijai Case No. 11/2004, against the petitioner and the notice was issued to the petitioner. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted his reply stating the facts in detail about non-execution of the agreement and non-depositing of the security amount and 1st Kist money. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Goalpra, on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner, called for the report from the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara. In the meantime, the non-bailable warrant of arrest, issued against the petitioner, was suspended until further orders. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, vide order dated 20.01.2006, has observed that the report furnished by the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara is not clear and accordingly directed the Divisional Forest Officer to appear personally with all relevant papers/documents pertaining to their claims.

8. By an order dated 01.03.2006, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, in the Certificate Case No. 11/2004 against the petitioner, has intimated the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara that the petitioner had stated that he did not execute any agreement for settlement of the Sand Mahal nor he deposited the 1st Kist money and the earnest money as per the tender rules within the scheduled time. Therefore, the petitioner had contended that he is not liable to pay the revenue and hence, requested the Divisional Forest Officer to clarify the matter as to how the Sand Mahal was settled with the petitioner along with signed agreement papers for necessary action. Thereafter, by impugned communication dated 26.05.2017, the Certificate Officer directed the petitioner to deposit the entire outstanding government dues amounting to Rs. 3,51,200/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred) only by 30.06.2017, failing which the movable and immovable property of the petitioner shall be attached and also warrant of arrest shall be issued against him. Hence, this writ petition.

9. Mr. A. S. Tapader, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Certificate Officer issued the impugned communication dated 26.05.2017 after a long interval directing the petitioner to deposit the outstanding dues of Rs. 3,51,200/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred) only in the Bakijai Case No. 11/2004 without following the due process of law and in complete violation of the provision of the Mahal Rules, 1977. The Bakijai Court never heard the petitioner. The Domini River Sand Mahal was never settled or handed over to the petitioner, as no agreement was executed. The respondent authorities, without considering the prayer for reduction of the quantity of the sand to 50%, issued a risk sale notice and having found that there was no response to the said risk sale notice, directly initiated the Bakijai proceedings.

10. He submits that as per Rule 17 of the Mahal Rules, 1977, if the tenderer whose tender has been accepted fails to pay the security or to pay the installment on due date or to execute the agreement, the sale of the mahal shall be liable to be cancelled and the mahal shall be resold for the remaining part of the mahal period at the risk of such tenderer as regards the loss to Government and if the proceeds one re-sale are less than the value at which it was originally sold, the difference shall be realizable from him and further the earnest money shall be forfeited and the whole of the fixed security deposit or part thereof shall be adjusted against the dues. In the present case, no agreement in terms of Rule 16 was entered into and therefore, there is no question of cancellation of the Sand Mahal, and therefore, there is no question of re-sale at the risk of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that no Bakijai Case could have been initiated against the petitioner as there is no due against the petitioner and the same cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913.

11. Mr. Tapader, learned counsel, has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bejiram Ingty Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 1981 1 GLR 222.

12. Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, submits that the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner for Domini Sand Mahal for 2 (two) years pursuant to the sale notice issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara on his offered value of Rs. 2,81,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty one thousand) only. The petitioner was asked to deposit the security amount and the 1st Kist money along with sale tax and additional sale tax. The petitioner after offering the sale value of Rs. 2,81,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty one thousand) only has failed to deposit the required security amount and the 1st Kist of the Mahal which has caused loss to the State. The due amount against the petitioner, being the recoverable amount as arrears of land revenue, the authorities has initiated Bakijai proceedings under the provisions of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. The petitioner has failed to accept the settlement without any reason except to offer a request to reduce the quantity of the Sand Mahal on the unjustified ground that the nearest 2 (two) Mahals have been settled with a lesser quantity which the authority did not accept.

13. He submits that the petitioner has refused to participate in the Bakijai proceedings despite the receipt of the notice except to submit the application to release/exempt from the Bakijai case. Therefore, the Certificate Officer, Goalpara has rightly issued the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit the amount due against the petitioner.

14. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

15. Despite the matter pending since the year 2018, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed nor the record is placed before this Court.

16. The petitioner offered the sale value of Rs. 2,81,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty one thousand) only in respect of Domini River Sand Mahal for 2 (two) years for the year 2003 to 2005 against 5000 cubic metres pursuant to the sale notice. Accordingly, the Domini River Sand Mahal was settled with the petitioner and vide communication dated 31.07.2003, the petitioner was directed to deposit the security amount and 1st Kist of the said Sand Mahal and to sign the agreement, failing which the Mahal shall be put to risk sale at the risk of the petitioner. However, the petitioner neither deposited the security amount and kist, nor executed the agreement.

17. The petitioner filed various representations for reduction of the quantity to 50% less as the nearest 2 (two) other Mahals were settled with the less quantity. The respondent No. 4 thereafter issued a risk sale notice for settlement of the said Sand Mahal, however no tender was received against the said risk sale notice which was issued on various dates, i.e. 22.01.2004, 19.04.2004 & 23.07.2004.

18. The Divisional Forest Officer initiated the Bakijai proceedings, being Bakijai Case No. 11/2004 before the Bakijai Court for realization of amount of Rs. 2,78,000/- along with Rs. 24,728/- and Rs. 48,472/- as Assam Goods and Service Tax and Income Tax under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913.

19. Records annexed to the writ petition reveal that the petitioner has filed various representations contending that since the respondent authorities have not considered his prayer for reduction of the quantity of the Sand Mahal, he be permitted to deposit the amount for 50% total quantity. It also reveals that the petitioner has prayed for release/exempt from the said Bakijai proceedings on the ground that there was no settlement as no agreement was executed in terms of Rule 16 of the Mahal Rules, 1977 and the re-sale/risk sale was initiated in violation of Section 17 of the said Mahal Rules, 1977. More so, no tender was received pursuant to the risk sale notice for the settlement of said Mahal.

20. From the available record, it is not discernable as to whether due procedure was followed before the impugned communication dated 26.05.2025 seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,51,200/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred) was issued by the Certificate Officer except a few correspondences by the respondent authorities. The contingencies and procedure for recovery of any amount due under the Rules as arrears of land revenue under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 are clearly prescribed. However, neither affidavit nor record is placed before this Court by the respondent authorities which could discern as to whether required procedure was followed or not.

21. The sale of forest produce, coupes and mahals is governed by the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals rules, 1977, the relevant rules are extracted herein under:

                   “4. Notice for tender.-Brief advertisement inviting tender (Tender Notice) for sale of Mahal/Timber lots containing the names of the Mahals/lots, Areas of the Mahal/quantity of timber, period of the lease/settlement which shall not exceed two years alongwith the date, time and venue for receipt of tenders, shall be published in the "Local daily newspapers" for at least consecutive two days by the Divisional Forest Officer at least one month prior to the last date fixed for submission of tender stating that the details of the Mahals/lots and other terms and conditions shall be available in the sale notice, which can be procured from the offices of the Divisional Forest Officer during office hours of any working day on payment of Rs. 50.00 (Rupees fifty) per copy of the sale notice :

                   Provided that for resale of any Mahal or timber lot, publication of short sale notice at least fifteen days before the last date of receipt of the tender shall be made which may or may not be published in the newspapers.

                   16. Agreement. An agreement as in Form in Appendix shall be executed within one week of the payment of the first instalment and security money as mentioned in Rule 15, by the mahaldar or contractor whose tender has finally been accepted by the competent authority.

                   17. Cancellation and resale for failure to pay security and instalments and to execute agreement. If the tenderer whose tender has been accepted fails to pay the security or to pay the instalment on due dates mentioned in Rule 15 or to execute the agreement mentioned in Rule 16, the sale of the coupe or the mahal shall be liable to be cancelled and the coupe or the mahal shall be resold for the remaining part of the coupe or mahal period at the risk of such tenderer as regards the loss to Government and if the proceeds one re-sale are less than the value at which it was originally sold, the difference shall be realisable from him: and further, the earnest money shall be forfeited and the whole of the fixed security deposit or part thereof as may be necessary, shall be adjusted against the dues.

                   18. Mode of realisation of arrears of sale value. Any amount due under these rules shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.”

22. Reading of the Rule 4 shows that the Mahal shall be sold by the tender system by issuing a notice in local daily newspaper for at least consecutive 2 (two) days by the Divisional Forest Officer stating the details of the Mahals with the terms and conditions provided that for re-sale of any mahal, publication of short sale notice at least fifteen days before the last date of receipt of the tender shall be made which may or may not be published in the newspapers. Rule 16 prescribes that an agreement shall be executed within one week of the payment of the first installment and security money by the contractor whose tender has finally been accepted by the competent authority.

23. Rule 17 provides for cancellation and resale for failure to pay security and installments and to execute agreement, which prescribes that if the tenderer whose tender has been accepted fails to pay the installment on due dates or to execute the agreement, the sale of the mahal shall liable to be cancelled and the mahal shall be resold for the remaining part of the mahal period at the risk of such tenderer as regards the loss to Government and if the proceeds of resale are less than the value, it shall be realizable from the tenderer and further the earnest money shall be forfeited and the whole of the fixed security deposit and part thereof as may be necessary shall be adjusted against the dues. Thus, Rule 17 is a provision dealing with resale of Mahals which contemplates the resale following lapses or default committed by the tenderer to whom the Mahal may have been initially sold. Rule 18 provides that any amount due under the rules shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Thus, any due under the Mahal Rules, 1977 shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue which would be under Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913.

24. In a somewhat similar issue, this court in the case of Bejiram Ingty (Supra), has observed and held, which is reproduced herein under:

                   “5. Let us take up the question as to whether the respondents are competent to take any proceedings to recover the sum of Rs. 9387.75 under the provisions of "the Regulation" or "the rules framed thereunder". The indubitable position is that the petitioner had asked for extension of time to quarry up to 3lst Oct. 1972, vide his representation marked as annexure IX. The representation clearly expressed that the petitioner had claimed therein that he could not work out the mahal but had paid huge amount and he also set forth six insurmountable difficulties to quarry in the mahal. In clear terms he prayed for extension of the time to quarry as well as extension of time to deposit the arrears kists. He never stated that he wanted the extension on payment of any extra money. However, the Government offered an extension, on payment of proportionate bid value amounting to Rs. 9.387.75. The petitioner was asked to accept the offer within seven days but the petitioner declined to accept the offer. He fervently pleaded that he should be granted time to remove stones to the extent of the amount he had already deposited. It is apparent on the face of the records that the petitioner had asked for extension of the working period of the mahal to enable him to quarry stone without payment of any extra amount. However, the Government offered extension of the terms of the lease up to 30-4-1972, on payment of an extra amount of Rs. 9.387.75. The petitioner declined to accept it. Mr. Konwar Submits that although the petitioner had not accepted the offer of extension in so many words, but in reality he worked in the mahal and therefore he was liable to pay the amount. On perusal of the entire records, we find that the petitioner had prayed for extension of period to quarry stone without payment of extra amount, but the Governmentoffered him the extension on payment of an extra amount of Rs. 9,387-75. The petitioner declined to accept it in clear terms, vide his letter dt. 12-11-71 vide Annexure-VI. As such, there was no agreement and/or any valid contract between the parties nor was there any breach of the terms of any contract. Therefore, payment of any amount for breach of any contract did not arise at all. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the Respondents proceeded to the coercive method of recovery of the said amount in Bakijai proceedings without any authority of law. The state has failed to establish its right to recover Rs. 9,387.75 under the authority of law. It was not an amount legally recoverable from the petitioner. Any penal action of the State must have the backing or "Authority of law", which is conspicuously absent in the instant case. Under these circumstances, the proceeding for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue was proceeding without jurisdiction. The petitioner cannot be fastened with the liability when the petitioner refused to accept the offer made by the Respondents. In the result, we accept the contention of the petitioner and hold that the recovery proceeding in respect of Rs. 9,387.75 is illegal and without jurisdiction and must be quashed.

                   9…………

                   “17. Cancellation and resale for failure to pay security and instalments, and to execute agivement. If the tenderer whose tender has been accepted falls to pay on due dates the security mentioned in Rule 14 or to pay the instalments mentioned in Rule 15, or to execute the agreement mentioned in Rule 16, the settlement of the coupe or the mahal shall be liable to be cancelled and the coupe or the mahal may be resettled for the remaining part of the settlement period at the risk of such tenderer as regards the loss to the Government and if the proceeds on re-settlement are less than the value at which it was originally settled, the difference shall be realisable from him, and further, the earnest money and the security money if already deposited, shall be liable to be forfeited.

                   18. Mode of realisation of amount.--Any amount due under these rules shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue."

                   Mr. Konwar submits that the State is authorised to recover the amount of arrears of instalments under Rules 17 and 18. This is the authority of law pointed out to us by Mr. Konwar. The provisions of Rule 17 may be paraphrased as follows:--

                   (1). On failure to pay the security money or instalments on due dates the settlement must be cancelled:

                   (2). Upon cancellation of the settlement, "the Mahal" must be resold for the remaining part of the settlement Period at the risk of such tenderer. As regards loss to the Government it provides that if the proceeds on resettlement are less than the value at which it was originally settled, the difference shall be realisable from the original settlement holder or lessee and;

                   (3) the earnest money and the security money if already deposited, shall be liable to be forfeited.

                   Therefore, we find from Rule 17 that the first condition is cancellation of settlement by the Government and the penalties prescribed on such cancellation are two fold. First, the earnest money and the security money of the defaulter shall be forfeited, and secondly, in the event of re-sale, if the sale proceeds on resettlement are less than the value at which it was originally settled, the difference shall be realisable from him. Therefore, the entire scheme of the Rule clearly shows that there is no provision empowering the Government to realise any instalment straightway as arrears or land revenue or to treat the arrears instalments as due under Rule 18 of "the Rules". The view that we have just expressed finds ample support in Praneswar Das (AIR 1973 Gauhati 51) (supra), where the question was whether the State Government was entitled to recover arrears in payment of instalment by way of Bakijai proceeding under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and the Rules framed thereunder. The Division Bench answered the question in the negative and observed as follows (Para 18):

                   "The crucial point, therefore, is whether the amount due in these cases can be said to be due under these rules. Rule 18 is a tiny rule and does not take in any amount due under any other condition, for example, on account of breach of terms of a contract, past or present. In these cases, the amount is claimed on account of the breach of the terms of the sale notice to recover the deficiency, or resale, namely, of Rupees 15.543/- in one case and Rs. 1,32,805.60 in the other. In that sense it is clearly recovery of damages for breach of contract. The amount due for breach of contract does not come within the expression "any amount due under these rules". The matter would have been different if the rule was framed to include not only any amount due under these rules, but also for breach of terms of the agreement or otherwise whatsoever."

                   10. Realising the position, Mr. Kon-war tried to salvage the case of the respondents in taking up the plea that it was not a case of recovery of any instalments but the coupe was resold and the respondents proceeded to recover the balance between the nil resale value and the price which was originally settled. However, the fact clearly shows that the quarry could not be resold and in fact it was not resold. Rule 17 is applicable only when in fact and in reality a coupe Or Mahal is resold and then the difference between resale value and the value at which it was originally settled is realisable as due. In no other contingency an arrear becomes a due under "the Rules". There is no provision to treat such arrears as dues under "the Rules". Therefore, when offer to resell was made and nobody turned up to accept the settlement Rules 17 and 18 are not attracted. In the instant case there was no resale of "the alleged coupe". Under these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents.

25. In the present case, it is undisputed that the Domini Sand Mahal was settled in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the sale notice in the year 2023 at his offered value of Rs. 2,81,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty one thousand) only. Despite letter of settlement being issued to the petitioner and to deposit the security amount and the 1st Kist and to sign the agreement, the petitioner failed to adhere. Consequently, no agreement appears to have been executed in terms of Section 16 of the Mahal Rules, 1977.

26. No doubt the amount due for sale of Mahal is a recoverable due as arrears of land revenue which would be recovered under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, however, the dues sought to be recovered is to be recoverable due under the Mahal Rules, 1977. Rules requires that an agreement shall be executed within 1 (one) week of the payment of 1st installment and security amount by the contractor whose tender has been finally accepted by the competent authority. If the tenderer whose tender has been accepted fails to pay the security or the installment on due dates or to execute the agreement, the sale of Mahal shall be liable to be cancelled and the Mahal shall be resold for remaining part of the Mahal period at the risk of such tenderer as regards the loss to government and if the proceeds of re-sale which is less than the value at which it was originally sold, the difference shall be realizable from the tenderer and the earnest money shall be forfeited and the whole of the fixed deposit or part thereof shall be adjusted against the dues.

27. Since no security amount or the installment was deposited and no agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondents, it may not be correct to hold that there actually was a due under the Rules which is recoverable. No doubt, the action of the petitioner in refusing to pay the security and the installment after his tender was accepted and failed to execute agreement on the ground that he be granted 50% less quantity of the total quantity in terms of the sale notice might have caused loss to the government, unless the required provisions under the Mahal Rules, 1977 and the procedure for recovery of recoverable arrears is followed, no recovery would be permissible under the law.

28. As paraphrased by this court, rule 17 reflects that on failure to pay the security money or instalments on due dates the settlement must be cancelled. Upon cancellation of the settlement, the Mahal must be resold for the remaining part of the settlement period at the risk of such tenderer. As regards loss to the Government it provides that if the proceeds on resettlement are less than the value at which it was originally settled, the difference shall be realisable from the original settlement holder or lessee and the earnest money and the security money if already deposited, shall be liable to be forfeited. Therefore, under Rule 17, the first condition is cancellation of settlement by the Government and the penalties prescribed on such cancellation are two fold. First, the earnest money and the security money of the defaulter shall be forfeited, and secondly, in the event of re-sale, if the sale proceeds on resettlement are less than the value at which it was originally settled, the difference shall be realisable from him. Therefore, the entire scheme of the Rule clearly shows that there is no provision empowering the Government to realise any instalment straightway as arrears or land revenue or to treat the arrears instalments as due under Rule 18 of the Mahal Rules, 1977.

29. The issue therefore, is as to whether the amount due in the present case can be said to be due under the Mahal Rules, 1977. Rule 18 does not take in any amount due under any other condition, like breach of terms of a contract. The amount is claimed on account of the non deposit of security amount and installment and for non execution of contract. In that sense it is clearly recovery of damages for breach of contract. The amount due for breach of contract does not come within the expression any amount due under these rules. The matter would have been different if the rule was framed to include not only any amount due under these rules, but also for breach of terms of the agreement or otherwise whatsoever.

30. The fact clearly shows that the mahal could not be resold and in fact it was not resold. Rule 17 is applicable only when in fact and in reality a Mahal is resold and then the difference between resale value and the value at which it was originally settled is realisable as due. In no other contingency an arrear becomes a due under the Mahal Rules, 1977. There is no provision to treat such arrears as dues under the Rules. Therefore, when offer to resale was made and nobody turned up to accept the settlement, the Rules 17 and 18 would not be attracted. In the present case there was no resale of the said mahal, no agreement was executed and no cancellation. Thus, no due is recoverable under the rules.

31. Upon due consideration, it appears that the Certificate Officer has issued the impugned order/communication for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,51,200/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred) vide dated 26.05.2025 after long lapse of initiation without there being any procedure shown to have been followed, which would not be permissible under the law as proper enquiry is required to be made before the certificate is issued for recovery of the recoverable dues as it would be indispensable to determine whether the dues claim by the respondent authorities are actually a recoverable dues in terms of the Mahal Rules, 1977 under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913.

32. Having found that there is no records to show that a proper procedure in the Bakijai proceedings for enquiry and determination of the amount claimed to be due, I am of the considered view that it would be not appropriate to straight away issue the certificate seeking recovery of dues claimed by the respondents in the facts and circumstances of this case.

33. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I am of the considered view that the impugned communication dated 26.05.2025, issued by the Certificate Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, directing deposit of outstanding due amount of Rs. 3,51,200/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred) only, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. However, respondents may avail the appropriate remedy as may be permissible under the law.

34. Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).