ORDER Heard Mr. Sukumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Devendra Kumar, counsel for the State. 2. In the instant case the challenge is to the notices issued by the District Certificate Officer (respondent no. 5) for realisation of a Sum of Rs. 10,395/- said to be the value of 12 diameter hume pipes of 36 pieces, which it is said, the petitioner has defalcated and/or misappropriated while he was in service in the year 1980. The petitioner has retired in the year 1986. 3. The State Government first tried to hold up the pension of the petitioner for the recovery of the said sum, but since no departmental proceeding for determination of his contumacy was taken within four years of his retirement, the action was quashed in view of Rule 43 (b) proviso (a) (ii) of the Bihar Pension Rule in C.W.J.C. No. 6425 of 1989 disposed of on 4-10-1989. We are told that the petitioner is being paid his pension thereafter. 4. It appears that subsequently a certificate proceeding has been initiated for the recovery of the value of those hume pipes at the instance of the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, West Champaran, Bettiah vide Annexures 4 and 4/1. 5 We are afraid that the action taken by the State Government to realise the said sum through the machinery of the Public Demand Recovery Act, is not maintainable, as the amount sought to be recovered is not a public demand within the meaning of the Act. 6. Mr. Devendra Kumar relied on serial no. 9 of the Schedule in the Public Demand Recovery Act, but that entry does not cover this case, since there is no written agreement nor the amount is due to any servant of the Government but to the Government. Further, the amount cannot be said to be due because that is disputed. 7. We, therefore hold that the amount is not a public demand and the issuance of the notices-vide Annexures 4 and 4/1 is vitiated in law. 8. For all these reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notices (Annexures 4 and 4/1) are quashed. Application allowed.