JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Defendants in Original Suit No. 14/11 of 1974-I in the Court of Mr. M.R. Nanda, Addl. Munsif, Bhubaneswar have preferred this appeal against the confirming decree of the Court below. 2. The Plaintiff, Respondent in this appeal, filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants-Appellants from proceeding with the Certificate Case No. 161/67 pending before Defendant No. 3, the Certificate Officer, Bhubaneswar. It is not necessary to state in detail the respective cases put forward by both the parties. The decisions of the Courts below need only be stated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. 3. The trial Court found that (i) the agreement in question was void being signed by the Collector, not empowered to enter into the contract on behalf of the Governor; (ii) the amount in question was note public demand; and that (iii) the certificate proceeding had not been properly initiated. 4. In appeal by the Defendants, the appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on the first above-mentioned point, and held that the Collector was empowered to enter into the agreement on behalf of the Governor of Orissa. The decisions of the trial Court on the other two points were, however, affirmed by the appellate Court. 5. Paragraph 5 of the agreement between the parties (Ext. 1) states: That an amounts recoverable by Government under these presents if not paid within the time mentioned under Clause 1 hereof shall be recoverable as a public demand or arrears of land revenue. Section 2(g) of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') defines 'public demand' as follows: 'public demand' means any arrear or money specified in Schedule I, and includes any interest which may, by law, be chargeable thereon up to the date on which a certificate is signed under Chapter II. Clause (i) of Schedule I of the Act says: Any arrear of land revenue, cess or any dues payable to the Government on account of water supply for irrigation. Clause (xi) of Schedule I of the Act states: Any money payable to a Government Officer or any local authority, in respect of which the person liable to pay the same has agreed, by a written instrument that it shall be recoverable as a public demand. Clause (xi) of Schedule I of the Act states: Any money payable to a Government Officer or any local authority, in respect of which the person liable to pay the same has agreed, by a written instrument that it shall be recoverable as a public demand. Therefore; apart from other dues mentioned in Clause 1 of Schedule I of the Act, any arrear of land revenue or all those demands which will be recoverable as arrears of land revenue and any money payable to a Government Officer or any local authority, in respect of which the person liable to pay the same has agreed, by a written instrument, that it shall be recoverable as a public demand would be legally considered as public demand. That being so, and in view of the specific stipulation in para 4 of the agreement quoted above all amounts recoverable by Government under the contract if not paid within the time specified therein shall be recovered as a public demand. So the decision of the Courts below that the amount in question was not a public demand is incorrect and is accordingly set aside. The line on which the Court proceeded to decide this point is also not correct.. 6. In column 2 under the heading "Certificate holder and his address" in the requisition filed for the certificate proceeding, 'Collector, Puri' only is mentioned. On that around the Courts below have held and Mr. Sinha, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, submits that the certificate proceeding has not been properly initiated as it has not been footpads by the proper person, and so the proceeding is bad in law and has to be quashed. The first sentence of paragraph 6 of the agreement Ext. 1 is as follows: That the expressions 'the Governor' and 'the allottee' hereinbefore used shall where the context so admits respectively mean and include their heirs, successors, representatives and assigns. The agreement was between the Government of Orissa and the Certificate Debtor, Respondent in this appeal. That document shows that Mr. T.N. Saraff, the then District Magistrate and Collector, Puri signed and executed that document 'acting in the premises for and on behalf of the Governor of Orissa'. That being so, the Collector from the very inception of the deal acted as the representative and/or on behalf of the Governor. That document shows that Mr. T.N. Saraff, the then District Magistrate and Collector, Puri signed and executed that document 'acting in the premises for and on behalf of the Governor of Orissa'. That being so, the Collector from the very inception of the deal acted as the representative and/or on behalf of the Governor. On the above premises the Collector was competent to file the requisition in question, but he should have mentioned herein that he was acting in the premises for and on behalf of the Governor of Orissa, who is the Certificate Holder. But the above defect in the description of the Certificate Holder in the requisition is only nominal, technical and clerical and the certificate proceeding cannot be quashed and, struck down only on much a defect. The certificate proceeding, therefore, shall proceed after that column in the requisition is amended to show that the Collector, Puri has filed the certificate proceeding for and on behalf of the Governor of Orissa and is acting on behalf of the latter in this proceeding. The certificate Court shall allow the said amendment and shall continue the certificate proceeding in accordance with law on due notice to both the parties. 7. In view of the above findings, the Plaintiff's suit has to be and is hereby dismissed. This second appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs of this appeal. Final Result : Allowed