H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has questioned the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner under notice dated 12-3-1982 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,622/-,vide Annexure-C issued by respondent-4. The notice reads as follows:- ( 2 ) THE point tor consideration is whether the recovery proceedings in question could be sustained in the absence of determination of liability in accordance with law. ( 3 ) Y. N. Ramanath is running a printing press under the name and style of Pradhan Printers at Journalist Colony, Bangalore. The Director, Printing, Stationer, Publication and Text Books, Government Central Press, Text Books Section, Bangalore (Respondent-2 herein) threw open an offer to the petitioner to print 40,000 copies of social Studies VIII, II Book in Kannada in the year 1975 by letter dated 10-12-1975. The petitioner was required to complete the printing within a period of 4 months from the date of handing over the manuscripts to the printer and also the supply of blocks and cover papers by respondent-2. The price quoted in the offer was accepted by the petitioner by his letter dated 16-1-1976. On 1/-1-1976, rcspondent-2 supplied the required papers. Since the blocks were not supplied for printing the books, the petitioner requested respondent-2 by letters dated 19-1-1976 and 23-1-1976 to furnish the same to enable him to go ahead with the printing of the text books. Thereafter, followed several reminders by the petitioner to rcspondent-2. The 2nd respondent after making necessary corrections to the manuscript on 18-3-1976 as well as the drawings, handed over the same to block-maker for preparing the blocks on 3-5-1976. However, there was no progress in regard to the supply of blocks which the petitioner pointed out to respondent-2 by letter dated 1-6-1976 holding the respondents responsible for the delay in printing on the ground that the corrected manuscript and drawings and also the blocks were not furnished in time. At the same time, the petitioner requested the authorities to supply the blocks at the earliest date so that the work could be executed without further loss of time. Instead of supplying the blocks, respondent-2 withdrew the work order by letter dated 4-6-1976 and directed the petitioner to return the manuscript and accordingly the petitioner returned the same. At the same time, the petitioner requested the authorities to supply the blocks at the earliest date so that the work could be executed without further loss of time. Instead of supplying the blocks, respondent-2 withdrew the work order by letter dated 4-6-1976 and directed the petitioner to return the manuscript and accordingly the petitioner returned the same. The transaction between the petitioner and respondent-2 was regulated by a contract executed in 1976 immediately after the acceptance of the offer by the petitioner from respondent-2. According to the terms of the agreement, unused quantity of paper was liable to be returned to the Government and, in the event of failure to do so, the Government was entitled to recover the value of the paper received by the printer as arrears of land revenue. It is stated that respondent-2 supplied 384 reams of white printing paper to print 40,000 copies of Kannada Social studies. Since the work order was withdrawn by respondent-2, the petitioner was directed to return the balance of paper to M/s. Karnataka Mahila Hindu Seva samithi, Bangalore, by letter dated 26-6-1976. The petitioner returned 239 reams of paper by sending the same to M/s. Karnataka Mahila Hindu Seva Samithi. In the meanwhile, respondents-1 and 2 had allotted another printing work for printing telugu one language 3 PCC for VIII Standard and Tamil 3 PCC for VIII Standard 5,000 copies each for which purpose the respondents had supplied 140 reams of white printing paper and 2-11-00 reams of colour cover paper. This work had been entrusted to the petitioner. After execution of the said work, the petitioner returned what remained with him consisting of 60 reams of white printing paper to respondent-2. But according to rcspondent-2 in regard to the second work order, after deduction of the paper utilised and the paper returned, the petitioner was still due to return 3/-01-13 reams of paper and in all the petitioner was to return 182-01-13 reams of paper to respondent-2. The rate of paper when it was supplied to the petitioner was Rs. 60/- per ream and according to the agreement it is stated that the petitioner was directed to return the paper remaining with him or to pay the ruling price at the relevant point of time. The rate of paper when it was supplied to the petitioner was Rs. 60/- per ream and according to the agreement it is stated that the petitioner was directed to return the paper remaining with him or to pay the ruling price at the relevant point of time. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent- 2 has wrongly chosen to levy penal rate at double the price of the paper existing at the relevant time and has called upon the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs. 22,622/ -. This demand was made through the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, who was requested to recover the same as if it is arrears of land revenue. Earlier to this respondent-2 had written a letter dated 28/30-4-1981 that the costs of paper would be recovered if the papers were not returned within 15 days vide Annexurc-B. It is staled that the petitioner did not receive any other communication from the respon dents. What happened subsequently was the arrival of the Special Tahsildar at the petitioner's premises on 5-4-1982 and service of notice dated 12-3-1982 on the petitioner demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 22,622/- in accordance with the orders of respondent-2 with a threat of recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue in the event of default in payment. According to the petitioner, actually a sum of Rs. 28,000/- and odd is due to the petitioner from respondcnt-2 in respect of work executed by him for printing and publishing of 5,000 copies of Tamil Language 3 PUC for the VIII Standard as well as the amount deposited and interest also apart from incidental charges paid to Central Bank. The petitioner is complaining that the said amount is still due and outstanding on account of non-payment by respondent-2. When the petitioner received a letter dated 28-4-1981, he met respondent-2 and explained to him that the amount due to him in respect of the printing work already car ried out by him could be set off against the cost of the unreturned paper and the balance remaining over may be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have explained to respondent-2 that the papers lying in the press were destroyed by fire and as such the petitioner was unable to return the unused paper to the Government. The petitioner appears to have explained to respondent-2 that the papers lying in the press were destroyed by fire and as such the petitioner was unable to return the unused paper to the Government. Thereupon, it appears rcspondent-2 assured the petitioner that they will do so as requested by the petitioner. ( 4 ) CONTRARY to the expectations of the petitioner, the impugned notice demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 22,622/- came as a bolt from the blue and, therefore, the petitioner has sought protection from the Court. ( 5 ) THE respondents have filed a detailed statement of objections. The sum and substance of the objections is that the petitioner flouted the terms of the agreement whereupon the work order was withdrawn on 4-6-1976 and that the petitioner returned only 239 reams of paper out of 384 reams supplied to him by respondent-2 and had unjustifiably withheld the balance of 145 reams which was asked to return. As regards the second work order for printing VIII Standard Tamil I Language and viii Standard Telugu I Language books, 140 reams of white printing paper and 2-11-00 reams of colour cover paper were supplied to the petitioner and after the comple tion of the work, only 182-01-13 reams of white printing paper as well as 1-05-19 reams of colour cover paper had to be returned by the petitioner which he did not do. It is also alleged that the petitioner has misused the paper allotted by the Government of India though it was exclusively meant for printing of nationalised text books. As regards the allegation that respondent-2 is due in a sum of Rs. 28,000/- to the petitioner, there is a total denial and the only amount admitted to be due from respondent-2 to the petitioner is a sum of Rs. 2,495/- towards printing of VIII Standard tamil Book and printing of six kinds of cover pages and security deposit of Rs. 1,400/ -. The allegation that an assurance was given by respondent-2 to the petitioner to set off a sum of Rs, 28,000/- against the amount due from the petitioner is denied as false. The occurrence of the fire accident also is refuted. 1,400/ -. The allegation that an assurance was given by respondent-2 to the petitioner to set off a sum of Rs, 28,000/- against the amount due from the petitioner is denied as false. The occurrence of the fire accident also is refuted. It is stated that sufficient time and opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to return the paper due from him or to make good the cost of the same and, on failure to do so, the respondents are constrained to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. ( 6 ) IT is manifestly clear that what is in dispute in essence is liability arising under an agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent-2 for printing work. If according to the respondents, the petitioner had failed to fulfil his contractual obligation and was liable contractually to pay a sum of Rs. 22,622/- to the respondents, the question is whether such a liability has been established before the proper forum. There are allegations and counter allegations, assertions and rebuttals supported by allegations of fact in respect of compliance or non-compliance with the conditions embodied in the agreement wherein the petitioner has raised the question of set off stating that he is due from the respondents a sum of Rs. 28. 000/- for the work executed, whereas the respondents claim that the petitioner has failed to pay a sum of rs. 22,6221- and, except for small amounts, the petitioner is not entitled to a set off of rs. 28,000/ -. In these circumstances which unfold questions of fact which are in serious dispute, it is difficult to reconcile with the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 22,622/- and, on failure to do so, that the respondents are entitled to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner as done by them. Demand and recovery arise only after establishment of the liability to pay. In the absence of determination of liability by a competent adjudicating authority, mere assertion, demand and recovery proceedings will not legitimise the claim of the respondents. Recovery pre-supposes the existence of a liability determined by a competent adjudicating forum. In the instant case, beyond the assertions and counter assertions of the petitioner and the respondents, neither of them has secured a declaration from the competent Court or forum. Recovery pre-supposes the existence of a liability determined by a competent adjudicating forum. In the instant case, beyond the assertions and counter assertions of the petitioner and the respondents, neither of them has secured a declaration from the competent Court or forum. I do not think that in the circumstances of this case I should use my powers under Article 226 of the constitution, to go into disputed questions of fact, to examine the rival claims, to adjudicate and determine the liability and then grant relief as warranted by such a determination. The Court cannot assume the role of a fact finding authority nor is it expected to do so. Further if the respondents were convinced that they are entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,6221- from the petitioner, there was no bar for them to approach the competent forum to obtain a decree against the petitioner and then proceed to recover the amount in accordance with law. In the absence of a decree of a competent Court, it is not possible for me to assume that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 22,6221- to the respondents and that the respondents are entitled to have recourse to recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue. There is no lawful justification for the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand and notice of recovery under Annexure-C is quashed. However, it is open to the respondents to seek relief before the appropriate forum for determination of the liability of the petitioner and for recovery of the amount based on proved liability, in accordance with law. Writ Petition allowed. (Respondent-2 herein) threw open an offer to the petitioner to print 40,000 copies of social Studies VIII, II Book in Kannada in the year 1975 by letter dated 10-12-1975. The petitioner was required to complete the printing within a period of 4 months from the date of handing over the manuscripts to the printer and also the supply of blocks and cover papers by respondent-2. The price quoted in the offer was accepted by the petitioner by his letter dated 16-1-1976. On 1/-1-1976, rcspondent-2 supplied the required papers. The petitioner was required to complete the printing within a period of 4 months from the date of handing over the manuscripts to the printer and also the supply of blocks and cover papers by respondent-2. The price quoted in the offer was accepted by the petitioner by his letter dated 16-1-1976. On 1/-1-1976, rcspondent-2 supplied the required papers. Since the blocks were not supplied for printing the books, the petitioner requested respondent-2 by letters dated 19-1-1976 and 23-1-1976 to furnish the same to enable him to go ahead with the printing of the text books. Thereafter, followed several reminders by the petitioner to rcspondent-2. The 2nd respondent after making necessary corrections to the manuscript on 18-3-1976 as well as the drawings, handed over the same to block-maker for preparing the blocks on 3-5-1976. However, there was no progress in regard to the supply of blocks which the petitioner pointed out to respondent-2 by letter dated 1-6-1976 holding the respondents responsible for the delay in printing on the ground that the corrected manuscript and drawings and also the blocks were not furnished in time. At the same time, the petitioner requested the authorities to supply the blocks at the earliest date so that the work could be executed without further loss of time. Instead of supplying the blocks, respondent-2 withdrew the work order by letter dated 4-6-1976 and directed the petitioner to return the manuscript and accordingly the petitioner returned the same. The transaction between the petitioner and respondent-2 was regulated by a contract executed in 1976 immediately after the acceptance of the offer by the petitioner from respondent-2. According to the terms of the agreement, unused quantity of paper was liable to be returned to the Government and, in the event of failure to do so, the Government was entitled to recover the value of the paper received by the printer as arrears of land revenue. It is stated that respondent-2 supplied 384 reams of white printing paper to print 40,000 copies of Kannada Social studies. Since the work order was withdrawn by respondent-2, the petitioner was directed to return the balance of paper to M/s. Karnataka Mahila Hindu Seva samithi, Bangalore, by letter dated 26-6-1976. The petitioner returned 239 reams of paper by sending the same to M/s. Karnataka Mahila Hindu Seva Samithi. Since the work order was withdrawn by respondent-2, the petitioner was directed to return the balance of paper to M/s. Karnataka Mahila Hindu Seva samithi, Bangalore, by letter dated 26-6-1976. The petitioner returned 239 reams of paper by sending the same to M/s. Karnataka Mahila Hindu Seva Samithi. In the meanwhile, respondents-1 and 2 had allotted another printing work for printing telugu one language 3 PCC for VIII Standard and Tamil 3 PCC for VIII Standard 5,000 copies each for which purpose the respondents had supplied 140 reams of white printing paper and 2-11-00 reams of colour cover paper. This work had been entrusted to the petitioner. After execution of the said work, the petitioner returned what remained with him consisting of 60 reams of white printing paper to respondent-2. But according to rcspondent-2 in regard to the second work order, after deduction of the paper utilised and the paper returned, the petitioner was still due to return 3/-01-13 reams of paper and in all the petitioner was to return 182-01-13 reams of paper to respondent-2. The rate of paper when it was supplied to the petitioner was Rs. 60/- per ream and according to the agreement it is stated that the petitioner was directed to return the paper remaining with him or to pay the ruling price at the relevant point of time. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent- 2 has wrongly chosen to levy penal rate at double the price of the paper existing at the relevant time and has called upon the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs. 22,622/ -. This demand was made through the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, who was requested to recover the same as if it is arrears of land revenue. Earlier to this respondent-2 had written a letter dated 28/30-4-1981 that the costs of paper would be recovered if the papers were not returned within 15 days vide Annexurc-B. It is staled that the petitioner did not receive any other communication from the respon dents. What happened subsequently was the arrival of the Special Tahsildar at the petitioner's premises on 5-4-1982 and service of notice dated 12-3-1982 on the petitioner demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 22,622/- in accordance with the orders of respondent-2 with a threat of recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue in the event of default in payment. What happened subsequently was the arrival of the Special Tahsildar at the petitioner's premises on 5-4-1982 and service of notice dated 12-3-1982 on the petitioner demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 22,622/- in accordance with the orders of respondent-2 with a threat of recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue in the event of default in payment. According to the petitioner, actually a sum of Rs. 28,000/- and odd is due to the petitioner from respondcnt-2 in respect of work executed by him for printing and publishing of 5,000 copies of Tamil Language 3 PUC for the VIII Standard as well as the amount deposited and interest also apart from incidental charges paid to Central Bank. The petitioner is complaining that the said amount is still due and outstanding on account of non-payment by respondent-2. When the petitioner received a letter dated 28-4-1981, he met respondent-2 and explained to him that the amount due to him in respect of the printing work already car ried out by him could be set off against the cost of the unreturned paper and the balance remaining over may be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner appears to have explained to respondent-2 that the papers lying in the press were destroyed by fire and as such the petitioner was unable to return the unused paper to the Government. Thereupon, it appears rcspondent-2 assured the petitioner that they will do so as requested by the petitioner. 4. Contrary to the expectations of the petitioner, the impugned notice demanding payment of a sum of Rs. 22,622/- came as a bolt from the blue and, therefore, the petitioner has sought protection from the Court. 5. The respondents have filed a detailed statement of objections. The sum and substance of the objections is that the petitioner flouted the terms of the agreement whereupon the work order was withdrawn on 4-6-1976 and that the petitioner returned only 239 reams of paper out of 384 reams supplied to him by respondent-2 and had unjustifiably withheld the balance of 145 reams which was asked to return. The sum and substance of the objections is that the petitioner flouted the terms of the agreement whereupon the work order was withdrawn on 4-6-1976 and that the petitioner returned only 239 reams of paper out of 384 reams supplied to him by respondent-2 and had unjustifiably withheld the balance of 145 reams which was asked to return. As regards the second work order for printing VIII Standard Tamil I Language and viii Standard Telugu I Language books, 140 reams of white printing paper and 2-11-00 reams of colour cover paper were supplied to the petitioner and after the comple tion of the work, only 182-01-13 reams of white printing paper as well as 1-05-19 reams of colour cover paper had to be returned by the petitioner which he did not do. It is also alleged that the petitioner has misused the paper allotted by the Government of India though it was exclusively meant for printing of nationalised text books. As regards the allegation that respondent-2 is due in a sum of Rs. 28,000/- to the petitioner, there is a total denial and the only amount admitted to be due from respondent-2 to the petitioner is a sum of Rs. 2,495/- towards printing of VIII Standard tamil Book and printing of six kinds of cover pages and security deposit of Rs. 1,400/ -. The allegation that an assurance was given by respondent-2 to the petitioner to set off a sum of Rs, 28,000/- against the amount due from the petitioner is denied as false. The occurrence of the fire accident also is refuted. It is stated that sufficient time and opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to return the paper due from him or to make good the cost of the same and, on failure to do so, the respondents are constrained to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. It is manifestly clear that what is in dispute in essence is liability arising under an agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent-2 for printing work. If according to the respondents, the petitioner had failed to fulfil his contractual obligation and was liable contractually to pay a sum of Rs. 22,622/- to the respondents, the question is whether such a liability has been established before the proper forum. If according to the respondents, the petitioner had failed to fulfil his contractual obligation and was liable contractually to pay a sum of Rs. 22,622/- to the respondents, the question is whether such a liability has been established before the proper forum. There are allegations and counter allegations, assertions and rebuttals supported by allegations of fact in respect of compliance or non-compliance with the conditions embodied in the agreement wherein the petitioner has raised the question of set off stating that he is due from the respondents a sum of Rs. 28. 000/- for the work executed, whereas the respondents claim that the petitioner has failed to pay a sum of rs. 22,6221- and, except for small amounts, the petitioner is not entitled to a set off of rs. 28,000/ -. In these circumstances which unfold questions of fact which are in serious dispute, it is difficult to reconcile with the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 22,622/- and, on failure to do so, that the respondents are entitled to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner as done by them. Demand and recovery arise only after establishment of the liability to pay. In the absence of determination of liability by a competent adjudicating authority, mere assertion, demand and recovery proceedings will not legitimise the claim of the respondents. Recovery pre-supposes the existence of a liability determined by a competent adjudicating forum. In the instant case, beyond the assertions and counter assertions of the petitioner and the respondents, neither of them has secured a declaration from the competent Court or forum. I do not think that in the circumstances of this case I should use my powers under Article 226 of the constitution, to go into disputed questions of fact, to examine the rival claims, to adjudicate and determine the liability and then grant relief as warranted by such a determination. The Court cannot assume the role of a fact finding authority nor is it expected to do so. Further if the respondents were convinced that they are entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,6221- from the petitioner, there was no bar for them to approach the competent forum to obtain a decree against the petitioner and then proceed to recover the amount in accordance with law. Further if the respondents were convinced that they are entitled to recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,6221- from the petitioner, there was no bar for them to approach the competent forum to obtain a decree against the petitioner and then proceed to recover the amount in accordance with law. In the absence of a decree of a competent Court, it is not possible for me to assume that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 22,6221- to the respondents and that the respondents are entitled to have recourse to recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue. There is no lawful justification for the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand and notice of recovery under Annexure-C is quashed. However, it is open to the respondents to seek relief before the appropriate forum for determination of the liability of the petitioner and for recovery of the amount based on proved liability, in accordance with law. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .