JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - The sole question for decision in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law by saying in his order dated the 21st March 1958, that no appeal lay to him against the order of the Collector of Puri dated the 11th September, 1957, appointing a Receiver under Sub-section (6) of Section 65 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Endowments Act). 'The answer to this question requires a careful scrutiny of it he relevant provisions of that Act and also of the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Certificate Act). 2. Under the provisions of the Certificate Act a requisition for the realization of a public demand may be filed before the "Certificate Officer"-which expression means either the Collector of the district or any revenue officer subordinate to him, duly authorised to perform the functions of a Certificate officer. On receipt of the requisition, the Certificate Officer is required to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 to 11 of the Certificate Act which are not material for our purpose. Section 15 of that Act provides for a mode of execution of a certificate either (i) by attachment and sale of any property belonging to the judgment-debtor or (ii) by arrest and detention in civil prison of the certificate debtor, or (iii) by adopting both these methods. No other mode of execution of the certificate is provided in the certificate Act. But Section 64 of that Act says that the powers given by that Act shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation from any powers conferred by any other Act in force for the recovery of any due to which the provisions of the Act are applicable. Thus, if in any other law for the time being in force, there is a special mode of recovery, of the public demand, the mere fact that a requisition has been: filed and that proceedings have been taken under the Certificate Act will not impair the powers of the competent authority under that law to follow the special mode of recovery prescribed therein. 3. 3. When the Endowments Act was consolidated and reenacted in 1951-52, the Orissa Legislature felt that drastic powers should be conferred for the realisation of contributions and other dues of the Endowment Department. Sub-section (3) of Section 65 of the Endowments Act authorises the recovery of such contribution 'as if it were' an arrear of land revenue Hence the contribution payable by the trustee of an endowment to the Endowments Department may be realised by certificate procedure in accordance with the modes of recovery prescribed in Section 115 of the Certificate Act. The Legislature however seems to have thought that apart from these modes of recovery some other modes should be authorised by the statute. Accordingly, Sub-section (4) of Section 65 of the amendments Act authorised the Collector of the district to deduct the contribution due, from the 'Tasdik' or any other allowance payable by the State Government, to the religious institution. Sub-section (6) of Section 65 of the Endowments Act on the construction of which the success of this application rests, may be quoted in full: 65 (6) Instead of selling the property after the attachment thereof under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, II of 1864, or the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, IV of 1914, as the case may be, it shall be open to the said Collector at the instance of the Commissioner, to appoint a Receiver to take possession of the property or such portion thereof as may be necessary and collect the income thereof, until the amount sought to be recovered is realised. The remuneration if any paid to the Receiver and other expences incurred by him shall be paid out of the income of the institution concerned. Sub-section (7) of Section 65 may also be quoted in full: 65(7)-Any objection which could be preferred or which was preferred and rejected by the Commissioner under Sub-section (2) shall not be entertained u/s 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, IV of 1914 and the said section shall be deemed to be amended accordingly for the purpose of this Act, in the matter of issue of certificate under that Act. It may be noticed that Sub-section (6) of Section 65 authorises the Collector of the district to recover the-contribution by appointing a receiver to take possession of the property of the endowment and appropriate the income of the same for the purpose of realisation of the dues. This mode of recovery is not authorised under the Certificate Act. Moreover, under the latter Act the recovery of the certificate due may be made by any Certificate Officer who may not necessarily be the Collector of the district, but may be an officer subordinate to him. But the power of appointing a Receiver under Sub-section (6) of Section 65 of the Endowments Act can be exercised only by the Collector of the district and not by any officer subordinate to him. Sub-section (7) of Section 65 of the Endowments Act amends Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Certificate Act by saying that once a requisition for realisation of contribution is filed by the Commissioner of Endowments before the Certificate Officer (District Collector), it will not be open to the certificate-debtor to file a petition denying his liability. His only remedy is to apply to the Commissioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the Endowments Act soon after receipt of notice about the contribution leviable from him. 4. The Petitioner is the Raja of Puri in whom vests the superintendence of the famous Temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri. The endowments Department levied contributions from the said Temple and for realisation of the same six requisitions, from 1945 to 1950, for dues amounting to Rs. 52,000/- in all, were filed before the Certificate Officer, Puri. It is unnecessary to discuss the various objections raised by the Raja of Puri against the realisation of the said contributions. It is sufficient to say that the Certificate Officer, after over-ruling all his objections, directed, on a application made by the Endowment Commissioner, the appointment of a Receiver to take charge of the properties of the Puri Temple known as "Ekrajat Mahal" and "Satais hazari Mahal". The dispute was then taken before the Member, Board Revenue, in Revision case Nos. It is sufficient to say that the Certificate Officer, after over-ruling all his objections, directed, on a application made by the Endowment Commissioner, the appointment of a Receiver to take charge of the properties of the Puri Temple known as "Ekrajat Mahal" and "Satais hazari Mahal". The dispute was then taken before the Member, Board Revenue, in Revision case Nos. 104 to 109 of 1955-56 in which the said Member set aside the order of the Certificate Officer, holding that the power to appoint a Receiver under Sub-section (6) of Section 65 of the Endowments Act was conferred only on the district Collector and not on any officer subordinate to him. Thereafter, a proper application for appointment of a Receiver was made before the District Collector (of Puri) who, by his order dated the 11th September 1957, appointed Sri R.C. Satpathy, Deputy Collector, as Receiver purported, in exercise of his power under Sub-section (6) of Section 65. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner of the Central Division, Cuttack, who rejected the same as not maintainable. 5. In my opinion, the view taken by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner is correct. Right of appeal is a right created by statute and the statutory provision conferring such a right should be strictly construed. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Certificate Act says that an appeal from any "original order made under this Act" shall lie "if the order was made by the Collector, to the Commissioner", The limiting words in this section are "order made under this Act" i.e, the order appealed against must have been either made or purported to have been made under some provisions of the Certificate Act. The District Collector order dated the 11th September, 1957 was-made under Sub-section (6) of Section 65 of the Endowment Act. As already pointed out, appointment of a Receiver is not one of the modes for realisation of certificate dues as provided in Section 15 of the certificate Act and consequently the order of the Collector appointing a Receiver cannot be said to be an 'order' under the Certificate Act. Hence no right of appeal against such an order can be said to have been conferred by virtue of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 60. 6. Hence no right of appeal against such an order can be said to have been conferred by virtue of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 60. 6. If the intention of the Legislature while inserting Sub-section (6) in Section 65 of the Endowments Act was to make the Collector of the district the Certificate Officer while passing an order for appointment of a Receiver, it would surely have stated in that sub-section that Section 15 of the Certificate Act shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. In this connection the difference between the language of Sub-section (6) of Section 65 and that of Sub-section (7) of that section of the Endowments Act is significant. The latter sub-section expressly says that (Sub-section (2) of) Section 9 of the Certificate Act shall be deemed to have been amended whereas in sub-Section (6) of Section 65 there is no such deeming clause. 7. Mr. Misra however contended that the Collector even after receiving an application for the appointment of a Receiver under Sub-section (6) of Section 65 of the Endowments Act, issued notice on the Petitioner u/s 7 of the Certificate Act and allowed substitution of his name in place of that of his deceased father and consequently all further proceedings taken by the Collector should be deemed to have been taken under the provisions of the Certificate Act. This argument does not appeal to me. If the relevant provisions of the Certificate Act and of Sub-section (6) of Section 65 of the Endowments Act are read together, the position seems to be this. On receipt of a proper requisition for realization of the contribution said to be due, the Certificate Officer in the first instance takes action under the provisions of the Certificate Act. If the certificate holder, namely, the Endowments Commissioner, desires that the Certificate dues should be realised by any of the modes laid down in Section 15 of the Certificate Act he will make the necessary application before the Certificate Officer, and all orders passed by that officer would be appealable by virtue of Section 60(1) of that Act. If the certificate holder, namely, the Endowments Commissioner, desires that the Certificate dues should be realised by any of the modes laid down in Section 15 of the Certificate Act he will make the necessary application before the Certificate Officer, and all orders passed by that officer would be appealable by virtue of Section 60(1) of that Act. If however, the Certificate holder considers that a Receiver should be appointed and files a proper application before the District Collector for that purpose and the latter appoints a Receiver under Sub-section (6) of Section 65 of the Endowments Act, that order of the Collector appointing a Receiver will not be an order under the Certificate Act even though the proceeding under that Act might then be pending. The appointment of a receiver by the District Collector does not preclude the Certificate Officer from continuing the certificate proceeding and realising the balance of the contribution, if any, by any of the modes prescribed in Section 15 of the Certificate Act. This power is expressly saved by Section 64 of the Certificate Act to which I have already referred. 8. Hence, in determining whether the District Collector's order appointing a Receiver is appealable or not, we have to examine carefully the relevant provisions of the Endowments Act under which there is no right of appeal. It is unnecessary for our purpose to examine why no such right of appeal was provided. That is primarily the concern of the Legislature. 9. I must therefore maintain the order of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Cuttack, dated the 21st March 1958, and dismiss this application with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/- (One hundred only). Application dismissed. Barman, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed