A. K. SEN, B. C. CHAKRABARTI ( 1 ) THIS appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated June 23 1976, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court disposing of a writ petition. The certificate debtor whose objection under S. 37 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Bengal Act) as a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Certificate Officer to issue a certificate succeeded before the Board of Revenue but was overr5uled by the learned single Judge, is the appellant before us. The short point, said to be a point of first impression by the learned Judge, that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether on a request being made under S. 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) to the Collector of a district by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for recovery of its demands coming within the meaning of S. 73d of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, the Certificate Officer, who is not Collector of the district could have himself issued the certificate on his own initiative. ( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute and may be set out briefly. On March 5, 1968, the Corporation sent a letter of request to the Collector of 24-Parganas under s. 5 of the Central Act for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,247. 05 alleged to be due on account of employer's special contribution from the appellant now before us, the certificate debtor. The said request being received in the office of the Collector was forwarded by the office superintendent to the certificate officer, 24-Parganas on March 8, 1968. Thereupon on April 6, 1968, the certificate officer drew up a certificate and caused it to be filled in his office under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Bengal Act and caused the copy of the certificate along with the notice under S. 7 of the said Act to be served upon the certificate debtor. On September 6, 1968, the certificate debtor filed an objection under S. 37 of the said Act raising various objections. 4 and 6 of the Bengal Act and caused the copy of the certificate along with the notice under S. 7 of the said Act to be served upon the certificate debtor. On September 6, 1968, the certificate debtor filed an objection under S. 37 of the said Act raising various objections. The only objection which is now relevant for the present appeal was to the effect that the certificate officer not being the Collector could not have entertained the request under S. 5 of the Central Act nor could he have himself filed the certificate under S. 4 of the Bengal Act. The Corporation contested such an objection by filing a rejoinder thereto. The certificate officer overruled that objection by an order dated November 11, 1968 though he gave no reasons for overruling the same. The certificate debtor preferred a revisional application under S. 53 of the Bengal Act which was heard and disposed of by the Additional District Magistrate, 24-Parganas. By an order dated May 27, 1969, he overruled the aforesaid objection and upheld the order of the certificate officer though he assigned his own reasons therefore and the reason assigned was ?arrear of land revenue is under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act 1913 a public demand payable to the Collector for the recovery of which a certificate under S. 4 of the P. D. R. Act may be signed and filed by the certificate officer. Section 73d of E. S. I. Act says that Employer's Special Contribution be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue. Therefore, initiation of the instant certificate proceeding under S. 4 P. D. R. Act was perfectly legal and within the certificate officers' jurisdiction. ? On a further revision the Divisional Commissioner by his order dated September 29, 1969, reversed the decision of the Additional District Magistrate and upheld the objection raised by the certificate debtor. He held that on receipt of a request under S. 5 of the Central Act only the Collector of the District could initiate the recovery proceedings and not the certificate officer who is not the Collector. He held that on receipt of a request under S. 5 of the Central Act only the Collector of the District could initiate the recovery proceedings and not the certificate officer who is not the Collector. On behalf of the Corporation reliance was sought to be placed on S. 3a of the Central Act introduced by the West Bengal Amendment Act 17 of 1966, but the Commissioner held that the said provision can have application only when the certificate under execution is one received on transfer from another district and not in a case like the present one. The Corporation then moved further in revision against the order of the Divisional Commissioner before the Board of Revenue, but the Board by its order dated March 9, 1970 upheld the decision of the Divisional Commissioner and the reasons given therefore. ( 3 ) THE Corporation then challenged the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in a writ petition which was allowed by the learned single Jude by the order now under challenge in the present appeal. The learned single Judge set aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue and overruled the objection of the certificate debtor. The learned Judge took the view that on a reasonable interpretation of S. 5 of the Central Act the clause ?as if the sum were payable to himself? at the end of the section must be interpreted to qualify both the first and the second part of that section; therefore, the sum which the Collector proceeds to recover on a request made under S. 5 of the said Act is deemed by legal fiction to be not only an arrear of land revenue which had accrued in his own district but also to be a sum payable to himself because of the aforesaid qualifying clause. According to the learned Judge unless such an interpretation is made, the Collector would not be able to recover the amount even himself on a request being made under S. 5 of the Central Act. Adopting such an interpretation, the learned Judge held that on a request being made under s. 5 of the Central Act, when the sum becomes a public demand payable to the Collector, the certificate officer necessarily becomes competent to issue a certificate for recovery of that sum under S. 4 of the Bengal Act. Adopting such an interpretation, the learned Judge held that on a request being made under s. 5 of the Central Act, when the sum becomes a public demand payable to the Collector, the certificate officer necessarily becomes competent to issue a certificate for recovery of that sum under S. 4 of the Bengal Act. The other contention of the Corporation that because of S. 3a of the Central Act the certificate officer is competent to issue a certificate was, however, overruled by the learned Judge as according to him that provision has no bearing on the point at issue. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved the certificate debtor has preferred the present appeal. Mr. Chakraborty appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the learned single Judge misconstrued S. 5 of the Central Act in holding that the clause ?as if the sum were payable to himself? qualifies both the first and the second part of S. 5. According to Mr. Chakraborty, reading S. 5 in the light of S. 3 thereof, it should be held that the said clause only qualifies the second part of S. 5 and it is only when the Collector to whom a request is made in his turn sends the certificate to the Collector of another district to be recovered by him, it is who is to recover it ?as if the sum were payable to himself. ? Mr. Chakraborty has next contended that the provisions of the Bengal Act are merely auxiliary providing for the machinery for recovery which cannot override or derogate from the provisions of the Central Act so that when S. 5 of the Central Act provides that it is the Collector who must proceed to recover the sum, the certificate officer who is not the Collector cannot do so by himself filing the certificate. Both the points raised by Mr. Chakraborty have been contested by Mr. Mookerjee appearing on behalf of the Corporation and by Mr. Sarkar appearing on behalf of the Revenue authorities. ( 5 ) ON a careful consideration of the first point raised by Mr. Chakraborty, we have come to the conclusion that there is scope for some doubt as to whether S. 5 of the Central Act is capable of being construed in the manner done by our learned brother. Sarkar appearing on behalf of the Revenue authorities. ( 5 ) ON a careful consideration of the first point raised by Mr. Chakraborty, we have come to the conclusion that there is scope for some doubt as to whether S. 5 of the Central Act is capable of being construed in the manner done by our learned brother. In S. 5 the two clauses beginning with the words 'as if' purport to introduce legal fiction and if both those fictions are to qualify the word 'sum' in the first part, one would expect use of a conjunction 'and' as between the two. Syntax of the sentence on the other hand lends support to the contention of Mr. Chakraborty that the said clause at the end of the section qualifies only the last part thereof so that when the certificate is transferred to the Collector of some other district for recovery he goes to recover the same as if the sum is payable to him. But, in our view, even then the learned Judge is right in his ultimate conclusion that on a request being made under S. 5 of the Central Act to a Collector for recovery of any sum otherwise payable to a public officer or to any legal authority, that sum becomes payable to the Collector. Such a legal fiction follows even independently of last clause relied on by the learned Judge. Under S. 73d of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 the sum payable to the Corporation as employer's special contribution may be recovered ?as if it were an arrear of land revenue. ? Section 5 of the Central Act again provides that as and when a request is sent to the Collector of a district for recovery of such a sum, the same is to be recovered as ?an arrear of land revenue which had accrued in his own district. ? Thus on a request being made under S. 5 of the Central Act for recovery of any sum due as Employer's special contribution to the Collector of a particular district, that becomes an arrear of land revenue which has accrued within the Collector's own district. ? Thus on a request being made under S. 5 of the Central Act for recovery of any sum due as Employer's special contribution to the Collector of a particular district, that becomes an arrear of land revenue which has accrued within the Collector's own district. When there can be no dispute about the fact that an arrear of land revenue which accrues within a district is payable to the Collector of that district, it goes without saying that combined effect of S. 73d and S. 5 as aforesaid makes the sum for which a request has been made under S. 5 payable to the Collector and it is wholly unnecessary to introduce any more qualifying clause ?as if the sum is payable to him? to give effect to that fiction. ( 6 ) THIS view of ours as well supported by an earlier decision of this Court in the case of the Secretary of State for India v. Doorga Prosad Chamaria (F. A. 249 of 1936 disposed of on January 16, 1941 ). There on a certificate being issued by an Income Tax Officer for recovery of an amount of income tax due from the assessee under S. 46 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1922 to the Collector, the certificate officer of the district who himself was not the Collector caused a certificate to be issued under his own signature under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Bengal Act. An objection being taken to the effect that in the absence of any requisition under S. 5 of the Bengal Act, the certificate officer could not have issued a certificate under his own signature under Ss. 4 and 6 in respect of a demand payable to the Income Tax Officer and not to the Collector, the said objection was overruled by this Court. Relying on the concluding words of S. 46 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1922 which made the demand recoverable by the Collector ?as if it were an arrear of land revenue? this Court held: -?the concluding words of this clause, namely, 'as if it were an arrear of land revenue' make the arrears due from the assessee a public demand within the meaning of the Public Demands Recovery Act. (Sch. 1, Sec. 3, Cl. (6), Cl. 3 of Sch. I of the Public Demands Recovery Act. ). this Court held: -?the concluding words of this clause, namely, 'as if it were an arrear of land revenue' make the arrears due from the assessee a public demand within the meaning of the Public Demands Recovery Act. (Sch. 1, Sec. 3, Cl. (6), Cl. 3 of Sch. I of the Public Demands Recovery Act. ). These words authorize the Collector to recover the arrears of income tax from the assessee as a public demand under the Public Demands Recovery Act. The object of a requisition under S. 5 of the Public Demand Recovery Act is to have a verified statement that the amount for which certificate is to be signed is due from the certificate debtor. Where the public demand is payable to the Collector, no such requisition is necessary inasmuch as the demand is made by the Collector who is the Chief Officer-in-Charge of the revenue administration of the district. In the case of arrears of income-tax the Income Tax Officer certifies that the amount of arrears is due from the assessee. The Collector on the receipt of this certificate is authorized to proceed to recover the amount from the assessee on the basis of his certificate. A further requisition under S. 5 of the Public Demands Recovery Act from the Income Tax Officer would be, therefore, a meaningless superfluity. The legislature has sufficiently expressed this intention by providing that the arrears of tax mentioned in the certificate of the Income-tax Officer are to be recovered by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. This provision makes the income tax payable to the Collector within the meaning of Sec. 4 of the Public Demands Recovery Act. ?on an appeal to the Privy Council the above decision of this Court as also the reasons given by this court were expressly affirmed by the Privy Council (see 49 Calwn 334 ). The Privy Council observed that ?their Lordships agree with the view taken by the High Court that the money was payable to the Collector and accordingly the certificate was issued under S. 4 and under S. 6 and no requisition under S. 5 was required. ? The Privy Council observed that ?their Lordships agree with the view taken by the High Court that the money was payable to the Collector and accordingly the certificate was issued under S. 4 and under S. 6 and no requisition under S. 5 was required. ? ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons we agree with the learned Judge that on a request being made under S. 5 of the Central Act, the sum requested to be recovered becomes a public demand payable to the Collector to whom the request is made for which the Certificate Officer could validly issue a certificate under S. 4 of the Bengal Act. We also agree with him that but for the same the Collector himself would not be in a position to recover such sum for which a request has been made. That seems to be the position in law because under S. 4 of the Bengal Act, the Collector himself can issue a certificate only in respect of an amount payable to him; so that if the sum for which a request has been made under S. 5 is not a sum payable to the Collector, he too would not be able to issue any certificate himself as suggested by Mr. Chakraborty. ( 8 ) SO far as the second point raised by Mr. Chakraborty is concerned, we find little merit therein. We may agree with Mr. Chakraborty that the provisions of the Bengal Act providing merely the machinery for recovery cannot override the express provision of the Central Act. But we are unable to agree with him that when on a request being made under S. 5 of the Central Act, the certificate officer issues a certificate there is any derogation from the provisions of S. 5 of the Central Act. When that section provides that the Collector shall proceed to recover the demand under request it does not mean that it has to be so done under his own order and signature. An arrear of land revenue payable to the Collector which is being recovered by a certificate officer under S. 4 of the Bengal Act is also being recovered by the Collector though made by the Certificate Officer on his behalf. An arrear of land revenue payable to the Collector which is being recovered by a certificate officer under S. 4 of the Bengal Act is also being recovered by the Collector though made by the Certificate Officer on his behalf. Therefore, when the certificate officer issues a certificate for recovery of a sum on a request made under S. 5 of the Central Act to the Collector and recovers the said amount, it cannot be said that it is not recovered by the Collector as envisaged by S. 5. It still remains, in our view, a recovery by the Collector of a public demand which is in legal fiction payable to him through the process or the machinery prescribed by law. In this view we overrule the second point raised by Mr. Chakraborty. ( 9 ) BEFORE we conclude we must observe that the Corporation was proceeding upon a misapprehension that S 3a of the Central Act which was incorporated by the West Bengal Amending Act referred to hereinbefore would be of any assistance to the Corporation in the present case. In our view, the learned Judge was right in his conclusion that this section can be of no help because it would have its application only in a case where a certificate is received under this Act by the Collector of a district obviously meaning thereby it is so received on transfer in terms of S. 3 thereof. In the present case the recovery was being made in terms of the first part of S. 5 of the Central Act and there being no transfer by the Collector to the Collector of some other district S. 3a can have no manner of application. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons this appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order under appeal are hereby affirmed. There will be no order as to costs. B. C. Chakrabarti, J. : i agree. Appeal fails.