Judgment : Mookerjee, C.J.: The petitioner, Mazdoor Sangha, claims to be a registered trade union of workers of M/s. Canton Carpentry Works Pvt. Ltd. (the certificate debtor), the opposite party No. 7 herein. The opposite party No.7, Company had purported to suspend its 34 workmen without complying with the provisions of the West Bengal Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1969. The petitioner, Mazdoor Sangha claims to represent the said suspended workmen of the opposite party No.7. 2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal after giving opportunity to the opposite party No.7, Company by a notice dated 3rd August, 1978, had called upon to pay the Company the suspension allowance to these workmen the aggregate of which then amounted to Rs. 2,50,254.41 p. The Company having failed to comply with the said notice to pay suspension allowance to workmen, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal under section 5 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 had sent to the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas a written requisition. There upon the Certificate Officer had signed a certificate for recovery of Rs. 2,50,254.41 p. from the certificate debtor company, the opposite party No. 7 herein. The same was registered as Certificate Case No. 25-WL/78-79. The Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas had duly served the notice and copy of the said Certificate upon the opposite party No.7, Company. The Certificate Officer had also attached the right, title and interest of the certificate debtor company in Premises No. 14, Radhanath Chowdhury Lane, Entally including the buildings and machineries, etc. situated therein. 3. The certificate debtor company, the opposite party No.7, having failed to pay its suspended workmen their subsistence allowance for the subsequent period the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal had made another requisition and thereupon the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas had drawn up another Certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 64-WL/81-82 against the opposite party No.7 for recovery of Rs. 1,29,25292 p. Notices of the said certificate case had been also served upon the certificate debtor company and attachment of the said holding No. 14, Radhanath Chowdhury Lane had been effected. We understand that the said suspended workmen have become entitled to receive suspension allowances from the opposite party No. 7 also for the period subsequent to the periods covered by the aforesaid two certificate cases. We understand that the said suspended workmen have become entitled to receive suspension allowances from the opposite party No. 7 also for the period subsequent to the periods covered by the aforesaid two certificate cases. The said dues of the opposite party No.7 are not however subject-matter of the present case before us. We understand that the State has also referred to the Industrial Tribunal a dispute between the opposite party No.7, Company and its workmen represented by the petitioner, Mazdoor Sangha, for adjudication of the dispute regarding payment of arrear wages, subsistence allowance, gratuity, etc. 4. The opposite party No. 7 had filed various proceedings including objections before the Certificate Officer, writ proceedings, Civil suits, etc. challenging the validity of the aforesaid two certificate proceedings against it under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. The certificate debtor Company uptill now has failed to substantiate its said objections against the two certificate proceedings. The opposite party No.7 had also repeatedly failed to company with the conditional orders of court to furnish security or to deposit any part of the certificate dues and all orders for stay obtained by the opposite party No.7 now stand vacated. 5. Even after the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas had effected attachment of 14, Radhanath Chowdhury Lane and had taken steps for putting up the said attached properly for certificate sale, the opposite party No.7 had purported to mortgage said Premises No. 14, Radhanath Chowdhury Lane with the United Industrial Bank. The said Bank has brought a suit for recovery of his dues from the opposite party No.7. The said bank had failed to obtain any order for stay of the certificate proceedings. On 13th September, 1985 a Division Bench of this Court by consent of parties had disposed of a Civil Order by directing that Premises No. 14, Radhanath Chowdhury Lane belonging to the opposite party No.7 shall be first sold by certificate sale after issuing a fresh sale proclamation. United Industrial Bank was given liberty to claim their dues out of the sale proceeds after the certificate dues would be satisfied. On 18th November, 1985 the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas held a fresh auction for sale of Premises No. 14, Radhanath Chowdhury Lane including the properties and machineries lying there. Five intending purchasers offered their bid. The Certificate Officer accepted the highest bid of Rupees 45 Lakhs offered by the opposite party No. 5. On 18th November, 1985 the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas held a fresh auction for sale of Premises No. 14, Radhanath Chowdhury Lane including the properties and machineries lying there. Five intending purchasers offered their bid. The Certificate Officer accepted the highest bid of Rupees 45 Lakhs offered by the opposite party No. 5. Binoy Kumar Vijoy Kumar Garodia. On the same date, the opposite party No. 5 had deposited with the Certificate Officer 25% of the bid money and on 17th December, 1985 he had deposited the balance and also the poundage fees and other costs and expenses. One Nanda Kumar Kandoi claiming to be an intending bidder had filed a writ application alleging, inter alia, that the auction did not take place at the scheduled hour on 18th Nov, 1985 and that he was readly to offer Rs. 50 lakhs. Upon the said application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Suhas Chandra Sen, J. had directed Nanda Kumar Kandoi to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- within 24th December, 1985 and another sum of Rs. 34,00,000/- on 6th January, 1986 as condition for staying the confirmation of the auction sale dated 18th November, 1985 Nanda Kumar Kandoi had failed to deposit any of the above amounts and the order of stay stood vacated. On 18th January, 1986 the Certificate Officer confirmed the sale in favour of the opposite party No.5. The opposite party No.6, M/s. Canton Carpentry Works Pvt. Ltd. Workers' Union, purported to intervene in the said writ proceeding filled by Nanda Kumar Kandoi. The learned trial Judge having granted an order of status quo, the opposite party No.5 who was the auction purchaser filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench vacated the said order of status quo but granted liberty to opposite party No.6, Workers Union to prefer an appeal under section 51 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. 6. The Workers' Union, the opposite party No.6, had filed Appeal No. 18 of 1985 before the Additional District Magistrate (J). South 24 Parganas under section 51 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. The appeal was contented by the auction purchaser, Vijoy Kumar Garodia, the opposite party. No.5, and also the petitioner, Mazdoor Sangha. 6. The Workers' Union, the opposite party No.6, had filed Appeal No. 18 of 1985 before the Additional District Magistrate (J). South 24 Parganas under section 51 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. The appeal was contented by the auction purchaser, Vijoy Kumar Garodia, the opposite party. No.5, and also the petitioner, Mazdoor Sangha. The certificate debtor, M/s. Canton Carpentry Works Pvt. Ltd., had appeared in the said appeal before the learned Additional District Magistrate (J) and had, inter alia, contended that the auction sale dated 18th November, 1985 was liable to be declared void because of gross irregularities. The learned lawyer on behalf of the State had also contended that the sale should be set aside as there were irregularities in the certificate proceedings. The lawyer for the State had submitted that the State had no objection to the re-auction of the property. He had further contended that no permission had been taken from the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 before putting up the properties for sale. Therefore, the sale should be declared void. The learned Additional District Magistrate (J), found that no fresh sale proclamation had been drawn up for holding the certificate sale on 18th November, 1985. The drawing up of the sale proclamation, according to the learned Additional District Magistrate (J), was an irregularity of a grave nature and this had rendered the sale void ab initio. According to the Additional District Magistrate (J), in view of the above position, the question whether the appellants before him were affected by the said sale, lost its relevance. The Additional Dist. Magistrate however referred to the claim of the Workers' Union who was appellant before him to the effect that the certificate company allegedly owned to its workers Rs. 76 lakhs as arrears of their salary, gratuity, etc. The Additional District Magistrate did not accept the submission made on behalf of the auction purchaser Vijoy Kumar Garodia that the application of the Workers' Union under section 23 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, should be rejected as no deposits were made by them. The Additional District Magistrate held that the Workers' Union not being certificate debtors, they were not required to make such deposit. The Additional District Magistrate held that the Workers' Union not being certificate debtors, they were not required to make such deposit. The Additional District Magistrate did not decide the question whether the sate was liable to be set aside on the ground that no permission from the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 had been obtained. The Additional District Magistrate allowed the appeal of the Workers' Union, set aside the certificate sale of the properties and ordered refund of the purchase money to the certificate purchase according to law. The Certificate Officer was directed to put the properties to re-auction according to law. 7. The Mazdoor Sangha which claims to represent some of the suspended workmen of the certificate debtor Company, the opposite party No.7, whose subsistence allowances are to be recored in the certificate cases under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913, filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the said order dated 3rd May, 1986 of the Additional District Magistrate (J), South 24-Pargauas, allowing the appeal of the Workers' Union, the opposite party No. 6 and setting aside the certificate sale dated 18th November, 1985. Vijoy Kumar Garodia, who was the auction purchaser in the said sale and the opposite party No.5, supported the petitioner. The certificate debtor Company, the opposite party No.7 and also the Workers' Union, the opposite party No.6, have contented the petitioner's case. Before us on behalf of both sets of parties, lengthy submissions have been made. Both on the question of maintainability of the application under section 23 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 and also of the appeal under section 51 of the said Act filed by the Workers' Union, opposite party No.6 and also regarding the merits of the said application and the opposite party No.7 have submitted that the Workers' Union the opposite party No.6, could not be considered as a person affected by the said certificate sale dated 18th November, 1985, the contesting opposite parties have submitted that the said expression was wide enough to include the opposite party No.7 which purported to represent atleast some of the workers of the certificate debtor Company. The petitioners have also submitted that even assuming that no fresh proclamation was drawn up and published for holding the certificate sale on 18th November, 1985, same would be a mere irregularity and without pleading or proof of any material irregularity being caused thereof, the sale was not liable to be set aside. On the other hand, according to the opposite parties, failure to draw the sale proclamation and publish the same for holding the sale on 18rh November, 1985 resulted in making the said certificate sale totally null and void. The Certificate Officer had no jurisdiction to hold the certificate sale without first preparing and publishing fresh sale proclamation in accordance with law. 8. In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution, filed against the aforesaid order of the Additional' District Magistrate (J). South 24-Parganas, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the finding of fact that no fresh sale proclamation under Rule 46(2) of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Rules was drawn up stating that the adjourned certificate sale shall be held on 18th November, 1985. We have ourselves perused the records of the certificate case and did not find any proclamation drawn up in Form-21. No doubt when originally the attached property of the certificate debtor Company was ordered to be sold by public auction, the Certificate Officer had caused a proclamation of the intended sale to be drawn up in Form-21. But on previous dates the certificate sale could not be held on the previous date fixed mainly because of the obstruction put up by the certificate debtor Company and others. In the records of the certificate case, we found an order in Form-22 which had been prepared under Rule 47 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Rules, for directing publication of the proclamation of the sale. The said Form on record contained an endorsement of service upon the certificate debtor Company. Mr. Gbosh, learned Advocate on behalf of the certificate debtor Company submitted that fresh sale procl1mation under Rule 46 of the rule read with Form-21 must be prepared every time a date is fixed for certificate sale. According to Mr. Ghosh, even when a sale proclamation had been drawn up but the sale did not take place on the date fixed, a fresh preparation of the proclamation for the next date of sale was mandatory. According to Mr. Ghosh, even when a sale proclamation had been drawn up but the sale did not take place on the date fixed, a fresh preparation of the proclamation for the next date of sale was mandatory. When a certificate sale is held without a sale proclamation, such sale would be void ab initio and not merely an irregular sale. In support of his submission Mr. Ghosh has relied upon a number of reported decisions, namely (1) Venkateswara Ettu Naicker v. Ayyammal and Others, AIR 1950 Mad 367 . (2) Jayarama Aiyar v. Vridhagiri Aiyar and Others, AIR 1921 Mad 583, (3) Appu alias Subramania Potter v. O. Achuta Menon & Other, AIR 1926 Mad 755 . In most of the reported cases relied upon by Mr. Ghosh. either no sale proclamation had even been drawn up or sales were held not at the hour or on the date fixed. 9. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner was right when he submitted that there was a preponderance of judicial authorities that non-publication of a sale proclamation makes a sale irregular and not null and void. A sale held without such publication of sale proclamation was liable to be set aside only at the instance of the person affected and on his establishment that irreparable injury had been caused by such irregularity vide (4) Sripad Balvant Kasture and Others v. Nagu Kushaba Kate, AIR 1943 Bombay 288. (5) Babubhai Karimbhai Jasani v. Vora Daudji Amji, AIR 1976 Guj 111 , (6) Govinda Menon v. Varkey and Others, AIR 1971 Kerala 8. In case of an irregularity in publishing or conducting sale there must be a casual connection between the said irregularity and the irreparable loss and injury suffered by the person applying for setting aside the sale. Therefore, as a result of irregularity, the person applying for setting aside the sale must have been adversely affected. Our attention has been also drawn on some of the reported decisions which have taken the view that when there had been already once a sale proclamation holding of a sale on an adjourned date without a fresh proclamation being drawn up, would not be bad. Law requires only fresh publication vide (7) Seshagiri Aiyar v. Valambal Ammal and Others, AIR 1952 Mad 377 . 10. Law requires only fresh publication vide (7) Seshagiri Aiyar v. Valambal Ammal and Others, AIR 1952 Mad 377 . 10. In our view, when an application under section 23 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, is made for setting aside sale of immovable property, the Certificate Officer cannot allow the said application unless be is satisfied that there had been a material irregularity in the certificate proceeding or in publishing or conducting the sale. Secondly, the applicant had sustained substantial injury by reason of the non-service of notice or an irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale. If the proceeding initiated by the Workers' Union of the certificate debtor Company be treated as one under section 23 of the said Act, it would be necessary to determine both the aforesaid points. In the present case, the Additional District Magistrate (J), found it unnecessary to decide whether the applicant had sustained any substantial injury by reason of the certificate sale. The appellate authority made only tentative observations but recorded no firm finding on the question whether the Workers' Union came within the ambit of the expression "a person whose interests are affected by the sale". 11. The petitioner, Mazdoor Sangha, challenged the locus standi of the Worker's Union, the opposite party No.6, to filed any application under section 23 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. No doubt, there is considerable substance in the submission of Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the certificate debtor Company that the judicial connotation of the expression "person whose interests are affected by the sale" has been now extended and enlarged. The said expression is no longer confined to only persons whose proprietory interest may be affected by an auction sale. At the same time, in order to maintain an application for setting aside sale by a person other than the judgment debtor one must prove that he was directly or immediately affected by the impugned sale of an immovable property. One who is likely to be affected hypothetically or remotely cannot maintain an application for setting aside the sale vide (8) Shyamlal v. Jagannath, AIR 1969 Cal 424 , which contain as detailed discussion of the reported authorities on the point. 12. Mr. Ghosh had strongly relied upon the majority decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (9) National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 75 . 12. Mr. Ghosh had strongly relied upon the majority decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (9) National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 75 . We are unable to hold that the aforesaid decision as an authority in support of the proposition that in whenever this is a certificate sale of an immovable property owned by the employer joint stock company, its workers as persons affected can maintain an application under section 23 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. In the aforesaid case of National Textile Workers' Union v. P. R. Ramakrishnan and Others (Supra), the precise paint was that when a petition for widing-up of a company by some other person is filed in court, the workers of the said company are entitled to pray to the court for impleading them as parties in the said winding-up petition. Bhagwati, C. J., who delivered the majority judgment recognised that under the Companies Act it was only the creditors and the contributors and certain specified contingencies, the Registrar and the Central Government, who could present a petition for winding-up of a company. But according to the learned Judge, the concept of a company had undergone transformation and the company was no longer the property only of the share-holders. The learned Chief Justice had observed that it may be that the workers had no right to present a winding-up petition under section 439 of the Companies Act but when an application is properly filed by persons entitled to do so, the W0rkers may still have right to appear and be beard is support or the opposition to the winding-up petition. In (10) Fertiliser Corporation's case, AIR 1981 SC 344 , an application under Article 32 of the Constitution by workers was held maintainable. The workers had challenged sale of certain plants and equipments of Sijdhri Fertiliser Factory. In the Fertiliser Corporation' s case (Supra), the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the locus standi of Workers' Union to file an application for setting aside an auction sale or certificate sale. In the present case, there is no evidence whether besides the property with sold the Certificate debtor or Co. owned any other immovable or movable property & whether by reason of the certificate sale, the Workers' Union would be retrenched or they would otherwise suffer adversely. In the present case, there is no evidence whether besides the property with sold the Certificate debtor or Co. owned any other immovable or movable property & whether by reason of the certificate sale, the Workers' Union would be retrenched or they would otherwise suffer adversely. There is no evidence whether the certificate debtor company besides the property sold had any other asset sufficient for meeting its workers' dues. There had been also no verification of the claim of the applicant, Workers' Union, about their allegations about outstanding arrear wages, gratuity, etc. Some of the cOf1tributions which were allegedly in default were to be paid not directly to the workers but to statutory bodies set up under special statutes. Therefore, on the facts now on record, it is not possible for us to finally determine the question of locus standi of the Workers' Union, the application under section 23 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act and as to whether they could be considered as persons affected. 13. Therefore, in order to satisfactorily dispose of the application under section 23 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act filed by the Workers' Union, the opposite party No.6, a remand in the interest of justice would have been necessary. But same would have meant further prolonging these protracted proceedings. It would have caused immense prejudice to all the parties and in particular the workers of the company. According to Mr. Mukherjee, the suspended workers to whom subsistence allowances are payable have been suffering immense privation and misery. We ought to make an order which would expedite realization of the certificate dues and result in early payment of the dues of the Workers represented by the petitioner, Mazdoor Sangha. After hearing the matter, we have reserved our judgment and had taken considerable time to decide what would be most appropriate order in the circumstances of the case. We have come to the conclusion that upon a true construction of the impugned order of the Additional District Magistrate (J), the same ought to be treated as an order for rectifying the mistake or error on the part of the Certificate Officer herself in not drawing up fresh proclamation. The Certificate Officer had a duty to draw up a fresh proclamation for sale. The previous proclamation was drawn up several years before the holding of the impugned certificate on 12th November, 1985. The Certificate Officer had a duty to draw up a fresh proclamation for sale. The previous proclamation was drawn up several years before the holding of the impugned certificate on 12th November, 1985. The Certificate Officer had a duty to ensure that among other particulars, the price or value of the immovable property mentioned in the sale proclamation was not illuory or unrealistic. It is common knowledge that in Calcutta and its neighbouring areas in the last few years there had been phenomenal rise in land values. The Certificate Officer did not attempt to verify whether the value of the property mentioned in the previous sale proclamation had been fairly and accurately stated and whether the said price of the property to be sold on 18th November, 1985 had become unrealistic and shockingly lower than the present market value of the attached property. As already stated we do not wish to make a remand either for the purpose of determining the question of locus standi or for the purpose of a prolonged enquiry about the accuracy and fairness of the price mentioned in the original sale proclamation drawn up and as to whether the immovable property at premises No. 14, Radhanath Chowdhury Lane had been sold for shockingly low price. There is a line of cases which have held that in the event the court holding auction sale itself had committed any error, mistake or had omitted to verify the price for which the immovable property was put up for sale, de hors the statutory provisions for setting aside the sale on being satisfied that by any such material irregularity or illegality, a substantial injury had been caused to the parties affected, the court may set aside such a sale. Vide (11) proboth Chandra v. Pashupati, 71 CWN 649, (12) Basanta Kumar v. Mihir Lal, 71 CWN 1044, (13) Debi Bux's case 40 IA 151, (14) Marudanayagam Pillai v. Manickavasakam Chettiar, 49 CWN 292, (15) Manmatha Nath Chakravarty v. Sachindra Kumar Chakravarty, 59 CWN 1082, (16) Bipin Behari Baidya v. Suryo Kanta Jano & Others, 67 CWN 1072. 14. Vide (11) proboth Chandra v. Pashupati, 71 CWN 649, (12) Basanta Kumar v. Mihir Lal, 71 CWN 1044, (13) Debi Bux's case 40 IA 151, (14) Marudanayagam Pillai v. Manickavasakam Chettiar, 49 CWN 292, (15) Manmatha Nath Chakravarty v. Sachindra Kumar Chakravarty, 59 CWN 1082, (16) Bipin Behari Baidya v. Suryo Kanta Jano & Others, 67 CWN 1072. 14. In the facts of this case, we hold that failure on the part of the Certificate Officer to ascertain what was the fair and accurate value near about the time of the holding of the adjourned auction sale on 18th November, 1985 and the ommission to mention the correct value either in the sale proclamation or in the notice issued in Form-22 read with Rule 47 of the said Rules amounted to substantial error and/or mistake on the part of the Certificate Officer herself. At the same time, the facts of this case in exercise of her inherent powers the auction sale dated 18th November, 1985 could not have been unconditionally set aside. 15. We have already mentioned the straneous attempts made to delay the proceedings by the certificate debtor Company which can no longer dispute its legal liability to pay the certificate dues. In the past inspite of opportunities given the certificate debtor Company deliberately did not comply with the terms and conditions imposed by different courts for stay of the certificate proceedings. The workers who had been suspended long time ago being suffered immense privation and penury. We have noticed that before the Additional District Magistrate (1), the State had conceded that the certificate sale may be set aide. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Government of West Bengal was nominally the certificate holder and on his behalf no objection was raised to the setting aside of the sale. But the State could not be so consented to unconditional setting aside of the sale. For all these reasons, we hold that the Additional District Magistrate (J), committed an error apparent on the face of the record by directing that the certificate sale held on 18th November, 1985 be unconditionally set aside. But the State could not be so consented to unconditional setting aside of the sale. For all these reasons, we hold that the Additional District Magistrate (J), committed an error apparent on the face of the record by directing that the certificate sale held on 18th November, 1985 be unconditionally set aside. In view of the undisputed liability of the certificate debtor Company to pay the subsistance allowance which is being sought to be recovered by the impugned proceeding, the Additional District Magistrate (J), committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not imposing upon the certificate debtor Company an application to deposit up-to-date certificate dues as a condition for setting aside the sale. Upon perusal of the impugned order of the Additional District Magistrate (J), it would appear that although the certificate debtor Company did not itself file any application for setting aside the sale, in appeal the Company had appeared and upon the ground taken by it, the Additional District Magistrate (J), had set aside the sale. Before us the learned advocate for the certificate Company who made the principal arguments on behalf of the opposite parties supporting the order of the Additional District Magistrate (J). The order for setting aside the sale primarily would be for the benefit of the certificate debtor Company. Neither the Additional District Magistrate (J), nor this Court has finally decided the locus standi of the Workers' Union, the opposite party No.6, who filed the appeal under section 51 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act. For the foregoing reasons, only upon certificate debtor Company depositing the certificate dues, the certificate sale may be set aside and in default of such deposit the certificate sale ought to be upheld. Since the question of payment of poundage and other dues payable in case an auction sale is set aside, is the subject-matter of a separate writ proceeding. For the present we keep open the question whether in the event the sale dated 18th November, 1985 be set aside whether the poundage and other dues would be payable in terms of the order of the certificate Officer already made after the appellate order and who would be liable to pay the said dues. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we dispose of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we dispose of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We modify the order of the Additional District Magistrate (1), South 24-Parganas under section 51 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, impugned in the present Rule by directing that in the event within two months from this day, the certificate debtor Company deposits with the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas the entire certificate dues in the two cases including the interests accrued up-to-date, the order of the Additional District Magistrate (J). South 24-Parganas shall stand affirmed. In the event such deposit is made person or persons interested in the certificated amount will be entitled to withdraw in accordance with law. If the aforesaid dues including the interests accrued is not deposited within two months from this day, the order of the Additional District Magistrate (1) shall stand set aside and the order of the Certificate Officer shall stand affirmed. 17. There will be no order as costs. 18. Let a copy of this order be sent by special messenger to the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas at the cost of the petitioner. Let the operation of this order be stayed for one month. But this will not be pre van t the certificate officer from proceeding with the deposit in the meantime. Chatterji, J.: I agree.