JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Petitioner was the Sarpanch of Narendra Grama Panchyat within the Bonai Sub-division of the district of Sundargarh during the period from 16-10-1957 to 9-9-1959. The accounts of the Grama Panchyat were audited under the provisions of the Orissa Local Fund Audit Act (5 of 1948) and proceedings were started under the Public Demands Recovery Act under the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Audit Act. There were two separate proceedings against the Petitioner being Certificate Case No. 43 of 1961-62 and Certificate Case No. 1 of 1966. The first case was under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 and the second one under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962. The Petitioner appeared in the certificate cases and contested his liability. Having obtained no relief in the proceedings under the Act the Petitioner has come to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and has asked for quashing of the Certificate Cases. 2. Several grounds were raised in the writ petition, but ultimately Mr. Rath for the Petitioner pressed the contention that The two certificates were not in accordance with law and, therefore, are liable to be quashed. 3. Section 10 of The Orissa Act 5 of 1948 provides: (1) Any amount certified u/s 9 as due from any person shall, if not paid by such person within one month next after the date of The certification thereof, be recoverable from him as an arrear of land-revenue under The provisions of The law for the time being in force for The recovery of arrears of land-revenue. (2) For the purpose of this Act, The Collector shall be deemed to be The person to whom The amount recoverable under Sub-section (1) shall be payable. (3) The Collector shall pay all certified amounts received by him under Sub-section (2) to the local authority concerned. Thus the statute provides that the money shall be recovered by the Collector on behalf of the Grama Panchayat under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act and when realised would be made over to the Grama Panchayat. 4. Section 4 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act and Section 3 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act deal with demands payable to the Collector. 4. Section 4 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act and Section 3 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act deal with demands payable to the Collector. In case of such demand no requisition is necessary and when the Certificate Officer is satisfied that such demand is due to the Collector he would sign a certificate in the prescribed form and cause such certificate to be filed in his Office. The certificate in these two cases do not show that the money is payable to the Collector. On the other hand, in the earlier certificate Case the certificate holder is said to be The Officer-in-Charge of Development, Bonai and in the second certificate case the Certificate holder is said to be the District Panchayat Officer, Sundargarh. In the second case there is a requisition for a certificate at the instance of the District Panchayat Officer. As we have already indicated, in both the cases the basis of the proceeding is the certificate issued u/s 9 of the Orissa Act 5 of 1948, and the money in each of the two cases is payable to the Collector. There was no need for a requisition in such a case u/s 4 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act. 5. It is well settled that the certificate proceedings being summary, the procedure laid down under the Act or the Rules must be strictly followed and the columns of the certificate must be properly filled up. They must show who the certificate creditor is, what is the amount for which the certificate has been filed, who the certificate debtor is, etc. When the certificate is signed, it has the effect of a decree and binds the property of the certificate debtor and the property may even be sold under the provisions of the Act See Baijnath Sahai v. Ramgut Singh 23 I.A. 45. We are satisfied, in the circumstances, that the two certificate proceedings have been initiated not in accordance with the law and persons other than the Collector of the District are not entitled to initiate or to proceed with the certificate cases for the recovery of the money in question. Both the certificates are, therefore, liable to be quashed. Since the certificate is the basis of the proceeding, the proceeding would fall with the quashing of the certificate. Both the certificates are, therefore, liable to be quashed. Since the certificate is the basis of the proceeding, the proceeding would fall with the quashing of the certificate. The learned Additional Government Advocate accepted the analysis made by us in the Court. 6. We would accordingly issue a writ of certiorari to quash both the certificate proceedings as not being in accordance with law and issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties not to Execute the two certificates. The writ application is allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100/-. (One hundred). B.C. Das, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed