JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - In this application under Articles" 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings in ?Certificate Case No. 121 of 1961-62 pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Administrator of Maths and temples at Karanjia. The Petitioner had taken a loan of 350 Khandis of paddy in the year 1961 from the Jashipur Math which was under the management of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karanjia in his capacity as the Administrator of Maths and temples at Panchpir. Towards the debt, the Petitioner had made certain payments and for the balance due from him, proceedings were instituted against him under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, who is also the Certificate Officer. The latter issued an order of attachment after rejecting the Petitioner?s prayer to permit him to pay the dues in instalments (Annexure. 1). The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj which was dismissed on 11-3-1965 by his order annexure-2. As against that order, the Petitioner filed a revision before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and there, for the first time, the Petitioner raised the plea that the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act is not applicable to the case as tile loan taken by him is not a public demand within the meaning of the Act. The Commissioner rejected this plea on the ground that u/s 2, Clause (g) read with item (x) of Schedule I of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962, any money which is recoverable under any custom or usage for the time being in force as arrears, of a demand or public demand of as a demand or public demand, comes within the definition of "public demand" and that as there is a custom and usage in the Ex-State of Mayurbhanj that a paddy loan given by a religious institution is to be realised as land revenue, resort can be had to the provisions of the "Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act to recover the arrears due (Annexure-3.). Against this order, a further revision was taken to the ?Member, Board of Revenue who upheld the order of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and dismissed the petition. 2. Against this order, a further revision was taken to the ?Member, Board of Revenue who upheld the order of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and dismissed the petition. 2. The Ex-State of Mayurbhanj integrated with the State of Orissa with effect from 1-1-1949 and, in due course, become a part of the State. Under the provisions of Orissa Act IV of 1950, the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 was extended to the Ex-State area of Mayurbhanj, and consequently, any corresponding law which till then was in force in that area stood repealed to the extent" that any provisions thereof were in consistent with the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act. The Bihar and Orissa Act was repealed by the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act 1 of 1963 which came into force on 1st June, 1964. Section 69 of the Orissa Act enumerates various enactments that were repealed by the Orissa Act and one of the Acts so repealed is the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. Section 70 of the Orissa Act provides that all proceedings under any of the enactments repealed u/s 69 and pending on the date of commencement of the Orissa Act shall be continued and disposed of as if the Orissa Act had not been passed. The certificate case against the Petitioner was started during the year 1961-62 when admittedly the Bihar and Orissa Act was in force. In the Act "public demand." has been defined as any arrear or money mentioned of referred to in Schedule II and includes any interest which may, by law, be chargeable, thereon up to the date on which a certificate is signed under Part II. Schedule I enumerates a list of public demands and it is conceded on behalf of the opposite parties that there is nothing in the Schedule corresponding to item (x) in Schedule I of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962. Under item (x) of Schedule I of the Orissa Act, any money required by any custom or usage for the time being in force to be recoverable as an arrear of demand or a public demand would fall within the definition of a "public demand". Under item (x) of Schedule I of the Orissa Act, any money required by any custom or usage for the time being in force to be recoverable as an arrear of demand or a public demand would fall within the definition of a "public demand". It is, in fact, on such a definition that the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue relied to bold that the provisions of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act are applicable to the present case. 3. Although by the time the Revenue Divisional Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue disposed of the revision petitions filed before them the Orissa Act had already come into force. Section 70 thereof makes it clear that any proceeding under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act pending on the date the Orissa Act came into force would be disposed of, as if the Orissa Act came into force would be disposed of, as if the Orissa Act had not been passed. The question, therefore, whether, there was any custom by force of which a loan due to a Math could be recovered under the Public Demands Recovery Act is wholly irrelevant. From the fact that a loan of the nature, with which we are concerned, is not covered by any of the items of Schedule I of the Bihar and Orissa Act it follows that the proceedings started against the Petitioner under that Act for realisation of the arrears was wholly misconceived. 4. In the result, we would allow this application and direct the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings in Certificate Case No. 121 of 1961-62 pending against the Petitioner in the Court of the Certificate Officer, karanjia. As the Petitioner had not taken the plea that the proceeding is not maintainable against him, but, on the other hand, appears to have acquiesced in it in the first two Courts, we would make no order for costs. A. Misra, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed