Judgment Untwalia, J. 1. The petitioner in all these three cases is a partnership firm, namely, the Ballarpur Collieries Company, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, having its head office in Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra. It owns three collieries in the district of Chanda in the said State. The petitioner was required under paragraph 33a (2) of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the scheme) framed under Sec.3 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Bonus Schemes Act, 1948 (Central Act XLVI of 1948) hereinafter referred to as the act, to pay to the Fund both the employers contribution as well as the members contribution together with an amount calculated at the rate mentioned in paragraph 33b of the Scheme to defray the cost of administration of the Fund on or before the 15th day of every month following the month to which the contributions relate. The petitioner did not pay or deposit either its own contribution or the members contribution which it had realised, within the specified time for the period--January, 1958 to May, 1959. The total amount which fell in arrears came to Rs.3,28,654/46 np. in respect of all the three collieries. The Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, Dhanbad, the respondent in these cases, proceeded to recover from the petitioner the amount of arrears aforesaid under Sec.10a of the Act by forwarding three certificates dated the 26th November, 1958, 22nd May, 1959 and 21st July, 1959, after having made and verified those certificates himself and under his own signature, to the Collector of the district of Chanda in the State of Maharashtra. The Collector of Chanda forwarded those certificates to the Tahsildar of that place for effecting recoveries and three certificate cases were started. 2. The petitioner eventually has paid and deposited the entire amount payable under paragraph 33a of the Scheme but it objects by these three applications to the action of the respondent for realisation of interest at the rate of 6 1/4 per cent per annum and pleaders fee at 2 1/2 per cent, on the respective amounts of Provident Fund contributions and administrative charges falling in arrears. The amounts under the two heads objected to in the three certificates cases are: 2_450_AIR(PAT)0_1962.htm The petitioners contention is that neither under the Act nor under the Scheme the petitioner is liable to pay any interest on the amount of arrears aforesaid or any legal expenses, such as, the pleaders fee, etc. Hence, the action of the respondent in including those amounts in certificate proceedings is illegal and void, and the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus against the respondent commanding him to forbear from realising the amounts aforesaid on account of interest and pleaders fee. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that under Sec.5 of the Revenue Recovery Act (Act 1 of 1890), the procedure to be followed by the respondent was to request the Collector of Dhanbad to send to the Collector of Chanda a certificate of the amount to be recovered and not to send himself under his own signature the certificates in question. 3 The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, in the first instance, endeavoured to take a preliminary objection that the certificate proceedings are pending in the State of Maharashtra and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have moved the Bombay High Court for the redress of its grievances as that High Court alone would have been competent to quash the certificate proceedings if they were fit to be quashed. But, on our pointing out that, if the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner are sound, the respondent, who is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court, can be commanded to forbear to proceed with his illegal action, the learned Government Pleader did not pursue the point any further and eventually gave it up. It was also not disputed before us that the petitioner has paid the entire amount of arrears payable under paragraph 33a of the Scheme. The learned Government Pleader also conceded in all fairness that the respondent, in anticipation of legal expenses to be incurred in certificate proceedings, was not entitled to include in the amounts of the certificate debts any legal expenses, namely, the pleaders fee, etc. The learned Government Pleader also conceded in all fairness that the respondent, in anticipation of legal expenses to be incurred in certificate proceedings, was not entitled to include in the amounts of the certificate debts any legal expenses, namely, the pleaders fee, etc. Apart from his concession, it is obvious that that could not be so included as none of the paragraphs in the Scheme entitles the respondent to recover any amount of legal expenses either on account of pleaders fee or otherwise on the amount of arrears remaining due under the Scheme from the employer. 4. But the learned Government Pleader took us to the various paragraphs of the Scheme in its broad aspects and contended that the petitioner enriched itself by deducting the members contribution to the Provident Fund and did not pay or deposit either its own contribution or the members contribution within the time specified in paragraph 33a of the Scheme. Counsel, therefore, submitted that the petitioner thereby made an unlawful gain in the shape of interest and, consequently, in equity is liable to pay the same at the reasonable rate of 6 1/4 per cent per annum. I am not prepared to accept this argument. It is well settled that interets cannot be charged by way of damages on any amount remaining due from a person. It can be realised only if there is an agreement to pay interest or if there is a statutory law imposing a liability for its payment. The Act obviously does not impose any such liability nor does the Scheme. It is well settled that interets cannot be charged by way of damages on any amount remaining due from a person. It can be realised only if there is an agreement to pay interest or if there is a statutory law imposing a liability for its payment. The Act obviously does not impose any such liability nor does the Scheme. It is no doubt true that in accordance with paragraph 54 all monies belonging to the Coal Mines Provident Fund shall be either deposited in the State Bank of India or in such other scheduled banks as may be approved by the Central Government from time to time, or invested in securities mentioned or referred to in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sec.20 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (Act II of 1882), subject to the condition that the securities in which investments are made are payable both in respect of capital and of interest in the Government of India, and such deposits and investments are bound to earn interest, but that by itself is not sufficient to make the employer liable for payment of interest for the loss occasioned by his failure to pay the money in the Provident Fund account in time. For such failure, punishment has been provided in paragraph 70 of the Scheme. I have said above, the liability of the employer to compensate the loss of interest has not been created and provided for in any of the paragraphs of the Scheme. 5. In regard to the second submission made on behalf of the petitioner with reference to Sec.5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, I may note that the learned Government Pleader had to concede that the procedure followed by the respondent in directly sending the certificates to the Collector of Chanda was not in accordance with the said provision of law. In regard to the second submission made on behalf of the petitioner with reference to Sec.5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, I may note that the learned Government Pleader had to concede that the procedure followed by the respondent in directly sending the certificates to the Collector of Chanda was not in accordance with the said provision of law. Sec.5 reads thus: "where any sum is recoverable as an arrear of land-revenue by any public officer other than a Collector or by any local authority, the Collector of the district in which the office of that officer or authority is situate shall, on the request of the officer or authority, proceed to recover the sum as if it were an arrear of land-revenue which has accrued in his own district, and may send a certificate of the amount to be recovered to the Collector of another district under the foregoing provisions of this Act, as if the sum were payable to himself. " It is, therefore, obvious that the respondent ought to have made a request to the Collector of Dhanbad to send the certificates of the amount to be recovered from the petitioner to the Collector of Chandra instead of sending them himself. 6 For the reasons given above, I allow the three applications and direct that writs of mandamus be issued against the respondent commanding him to forbear from realising from the petitioner the three amounts (Rs.10289/44 np. , Rs.3597/19 np. and Rs.3690/70 np.) mentioned above. In the circumstances of the case, I would make no order as to costs in any of the cases.