JUDGMENT M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition seeks to raise the question of the constitutionality of the provisions of the. U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. The challenge is on the ground of the legislative incompetence of the state legislature to have enacted the said enactment. The learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench pronouncement of the Madras High Court reported in AIR 1981 Mad. 318 G.N. Venkataswamy v. Tamil Nadu Small Industries. It is not necessary for us to consider the correctness or otherwise of the said High 'Court decision. In our view after the decision of the Supreme Court in The Director of Industries, U.P. v. Deep Chand Agarwal, AIR 1980 SC 801 which has been relied upon by the Division Bench of this court in Ratan Sons Industries v. U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur, 1984 All LJ 44, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the aforesaid controversy before us. Sri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision was not tailed upon to consider the legislative competence of the State Legislature and the said decision was rendered only with reference to a challenge which had been raised under Art, 14 to the Constitution of India. In our view, the binding nature of the Supreme Court decision under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, cannot be whittled down on the aforesaid ground. Once the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the enactment, it is not material that a particular aspect questioning the validity of the enactment was not specifically raised and decided. It was undoubtedly upon to the petitioner in the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court to have questioned the validity of the enactment on the ground of the legislative incompetence. The learned counsel next contended that the Supreme Court decision was rendered with reference to the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act of 1965 and in the instant case, the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act of 1972 is in the picture. In our view, this does not make any difference so far as the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned. In our view, this does not make any difference so far as the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned. If the Legislature had lacked the competence to enact the U.P. Act of 1972, it must a fortiori, be held to have lacked the competence to have enacted the U.P. Act No. 25 of 1965. Again, the learned counsel's contention is that in the instant case a Banking company is in the picture whereas in the Director of Industries, U.P. v. Deep Chand Agarwal, 1980 All LJ 354 (SC) (supra) the State of U.P. was the creditor. In our view, so far as the question of legislative competence is concerned, this aspect makes no distinction. It should be seen that in the Division Bench pronouncement in Ratan Sons Industries v. U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur, 1984 All LJ 44 (supra), the State Financial Corporation was in the picture. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that S. 11-A of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act is also lacking in the constitutional validity on the same ground viz. the lack of legislative competence. Again, we find no force in this contention. It is also rejected. 2. Accordingly we dismiss this petition in limine.