JUDGMENT G. C. Bharuka, J. - The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of entire proceedings in Certificate Case No. F-4 of 1975-76 pending in the court of Certificate Officer, Garhwa. 2. The relevant facts may be stated in short. The petitioner/pursuant to a tender notice published in the Bihar Gazette dated 9.1.1974 for collection of Kendu leaves, submitted his tender on 4.3.1974 for acquiring Kendu leaves from Unit no. 208 of Dhurki within Garhwa North. The petitioner was found to be the highest tenderer and accordingly, he was directed to execute a contract but the petitioner failed to comply with that direction. Accordingly, the unit had to be re-auctioned and settled in favour of another person. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a notice to pay the amount of damages caused to the Government because of non-execution of the contract and its settlement at a lesser rate. The damage was calculated as per the stipulation contained in Condition No. 17 of the tender notice. Since the petitioner failed to pay the amount of damages as demanded, the impugned certificate proceedings were initiated against him. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the present certificate proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the amount of damages sought to be recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the stipulations in the tender notice arc not public demand within the meaning of section 3 (6) of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter ill short the 'Act') read with Schedule I thereof. To repel the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on entries no. 4 and 9 of Schedule I of the Act and submitted that Condition No. 17 of the tender notice, which has, been filed as Annexure 'B' to the counter affidavit, dearly stipulates the mode of computing damages in such cases where successful tenderers refuse to execute the contract and also that the said amount of damages can be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. 4. The two entries of Schedule I, relied upon by the learned counsel for the State read as under : "4. 4. The two entries of Schedule I, relied upon by the learned counsel for the State read as under : "4. Any money which is declared by any enactment for the time being in force- (i) to be a demand or public demand; or (ii) to be recoverable as arrears of a demand or public demand, or as a demand or public demand; or (iii) to be recoverable under the Bengal Land-revenue Sales Act, 1868 (Ben. Act VII of 1868). 9. Any money payable to a servant of the Government or any local authority, in respect of which the person liable to pay the same has agreed, by a written instrument, that it shall he recoverable as a public demand." 5. So far as the above entry no. 4 is concerned, it will apply only where the necessary declaration contained therein is made by any enactment and therefore even if the tender notice provides that the damages can be recovered as arrears of land-revenue still it cannot be treated as a public demand within the statutory meaning provided under the Act because a tender notice can not be said to be an enactment. 6. So far as the entry no. 9 to the Schedule referred to above is concerned, it will have its play only if the person liable to pay any money to a Government servant has by a written instrument agreed that it shall be recoverable as a public demand. Therefore, to bring a demand within the mischief of this entry it has to be established by the Requisitioning authority that (I) there is a written instrument in the hand of the person liable to pay the money agreeing that the amount can be recovered as a public demand and (II) the money should be a specified definite sum which should be a specified definite sum which should be a specified definite sum which should be a specified definite sum which should be embodied in the said written instrument. 7. In the present case though the respondents have filed counted affidavit but no written instrument to the above effect has been filed. It has been sought to be argued that since pursuant to the tender notice the petitioner had submitted his tender, therefore, it should be presumed that he had agreed to all the terms and conditions contained in the tender. It has been sought to be argued that since pursuant to the tender notice the petitioner had submitted his tender, therefore, it should be presumed that he had agreed to all the terms and conditions contained in the tender. The respondents may be right that by acting pursuant to the tender the petitioner may be said to have entered into a contract making himself liable to pay the damages as per the stipulations in the tender notice but that by itself cannot amount to having executed a written instrument within the meaning of entry no. 9 in question. For taking recourse under this entry there should be and unequivocable and express written instrument making a declaration that the amounts due can be recovered as a public demand and an implicit contract is of no consequence in this regard. The binding precedents have repeatedly held that looking at the coercive nature of the provisions of the Act, it has to be strictly construed and meticulously followed. Further there is nothing to show that the petitioner had agreed for recovery of any specified amount through coercive mode of recovery provided under the Act as a public demand. Accordingly, in my opinion, since the demands in question are not public demands within the strict letters of the law, therefore the machinery provided under the Act. 8. Accordingly, in my opinion, the entire impugned certificate proceeding are without jurisdiction. The view taken by me is duly fortified by the Bench decisions of this Court in the case of Mosaddi Singh vs. The State of Bihar & others, reported in 1977 PLJR 69 and Budha Singh vs. The State of Bihar & others, reported in AIR 1981 Patna 149. 9. In the result the impugned certificate proceeding pending against the petitioner are quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs.