Judgment Sarwar Ali, J. 1. The petitioner, the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, a statutory commission constituted under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has moved this court for quashing the order of the District Certificate Officer, Gaya, dated the 12th February, 1970 (contained in Annexure 10), passed in case No. 23/O. D. of 1967-68. It has further been prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the District Certificate Officer to proceed in accordance with law for realisation of the loan which is payable by the Ghosi Haddi Charm Udyogik Sahyog Samiti Ltd. (respondent No. 2), a society registered under the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Co-operative Societies, Act). 2. The facts leading to the films of this writ application may be compactly stated : The petitioner advanced a sum of Rs. 9.750 to respondent No. 2. Since there was non-payment of this amount along with interest, the petitioner sent a notice under Rule 25-A (1) of the Khadi and Village Industries Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), requiring the said respondent to pay the amount due which, according to the petitioner, was at that time Rs. 13,589.62, within thirty days of the receipt of the notice. It was further stated that on failure to pay the amount the petitioner will proceed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue under Sec.19-B of the Act read with Rule 25-A of the Rules. On failure of the respondent to pay the amount due, the petitioner requested the Collector of Bombay. Suburban District, to take necessary steps for realisation of the amount under Sec.3 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. At this request, the Additional Collector, Bombay Suburban District (Recovery Mahalkari Branch) wrote to the Collector of Gaya requesting him to take necessary steps for recovery of the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue. The letter of the Additional Collector, Bombay Suburban District, is Annexure 3 to this writ application. On receipt of this letter, steps were taken by the District Certificate Officer, Gaya, for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue and notices were issued to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed an objection under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, before the District Certificate Officer. On receipt of this letter, steps were taken by the District Certificate Officer, Gaya, for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue and notices were issued to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed an objection under Section 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, before the District Certificate Officer. A copy of the objection is Annexure 5 to this writ application. The District Certificate Officer, Gaya, has disposed of the objection upholding its validity and has held that the amount in question is not recoverable as a public demand. He has accordingly struck off the certificate proceedings. The view taken by the District Certificate Officer appears to be that since no award has been given under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, it was not possible to proceed with the recovery of the amount in question. This order, as already stated, is under challenge. 3. Show cause has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. In the show cauee it has been averred that no demand, as alleged, was made by the petitioner. It has further been stated that proper procedure has not been followed by the petitioner-Commission in accordance with Sec.19-B of the Act and as such the amount could not be recovered as a public demand through certificate proceedings. 4. Mr. Basudeva Prasad appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the view of law taken by the District Certificate Officer is erroneous and his order is fit to be quashed. He has contended that Sec.19-B of the Act clearly lays down that the sum payable to the Commission (petitioner) can be re-covared in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. Rules have been framed under the provisions of the Act. Rule 25-A of the Rules lays down the procedure that has to be followed for the purposes of recovering the amounts due as arrears of land revenue. According to learned counsel, the amount in question was covered by the provisions aforesaid and, proper procedure having been followed, the same was recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. He has further contended that the view of the District Certificate Officer that unless there was an award under the Cooperative Societies Act, the amount was not recoverable, is erroneous in law. He has further contended that the view of the District Certificate Officer that unless there was an award under the Cooperative Societies Act, the amount was not recoverable, is erroneous in law. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, supported the view taken by the District Certificate Officer and further contended that although some amount may be due, the procedure as envisaged in Rule 25-A of the Rules has not been followed as proper notice was not served on respondent No. 2. He also contended that, if given an opportunity, the said respondent could have been able to show that the amount claimed is not recoverable at all or is, at any rate, exaggerated. 5. In my view, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the view of law taken by the District Certificate Officer is erroneous, is correct. The District Certificate Officer has taken the view that since the loan in question was given to a society registered under the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, the proper procedure for the petitioner-Commission was, first, to obtain an award and thereafter to proceed with the recovery under the provisions of that Act. This, in my opinion, is not a correct view in law Sec. 52 of the Co-operative Societies Act deals with the recovery of sums due. If at all, the claim in question could be covered by Sec. 52 (e); but a perusal of Section 48 to which reference is made in Sec. 52 (e) shows that the dispute of the nature which is under consideration is not covered by Sec. 48. Sec. 48 enumerates the classes of disputes in which reference is to be made to the Registrar. Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e) of Sec. 48 (1) are clearly inapplicable. Clause (d) could have been applicable provided the dispute was between two societies registered under the provisions of the Bihar Act. Since the petitioner is not a registered society under the Bihar Act (Cooperative Societies Act). Clause (d) is also not applicable. Thus, in my view, Sec. 48 can have no application to the claim in question. There could, therefore, be no reference to the Registrar which could form the subject-matter of an award by him. 6. Since the petitioner is not a registered society under the Bihar Act (Cooperative Societies Act). Clause (d) is also not applicable. Thus, in my view, Sec. 48 can have no application to the claim in question. There could, therefore, be no reference to the Registrar which could form the subject-matter of an award by him. 6. The other view expressed by the District Certificate Officer that the petitioner is not entitled to recover the amount in question as arrears of land revenue is also not correct in law. Sec.19-B (1) of the Act is as follows: "Any sum payable to the commission under any agreement, express or implied, or otherwise howsoever, may be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue." It is thus clear that if an amount is payable to the commission, which is a statutory body under the Act, the same is by virtue of the above provision recoverable in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. The Revenue Recovery Act is a Central Legislation dealing with the recovery of certified public demands which are either land revenue or recoverable as land revenue. Sec. 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act lays down the manner in which the recovery is to be made. Sec.3 thereof relates to recovery of public demands by enforcement of process in other districts than those in which they become payable; and the petitioner rightly, under Sec. 5 aforesaid, made an application to the Collector, Bombay Suburban District, who acting under Sec.3 requested the Collector of Gaya to take necessary steps for recovery of the impugned claim. Thus, it is clear that in the circumstances of the case it is legally possible to recover the amount claimed, provided there be no other legal objection to the recovery, through the process envisaged under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. In this view of the matter, the impugned order has got to be quashed. 7 It is not necessary in this writ application to decide the contentious question as to whether notices as contemplated under Rule 25-A of the Rules were served and whether any other legal objection can be taken by respondent No. 2 to the recovery of either the whole or part of the demand. 7 It is not necessary in this writ application to decide the contentious question as to whether notices as contemplated under Rule 25-A of the Rules were served and whether any other legal objection can be taken by respondent No. 2 to the recovery of either the whole or part of the demand. It would be sufficient if a direction is given to the certificate officer to permit respondent No. 2 to file any further objection that he may have in respect of the demand sought to be recovered and then, after giving proper opportunity to the parties, to decide the objection, if any raised and proceed to recover the amount, if recoverable, in accordance with law. 8. In the result, this application is allowed with the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs. Anwar Ahmad, J. 9 I agree.