SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, C. J. ( 1 ) IN the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned certificate dated 15. 10. 1998 (Annexure-6) issued by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and forwarding letter dated 24. 10. 1998 (Annexure-6a) issued by respondent No. 2 and recovery notice dated 5. 6. 1999 (Annexures-5 and 5a) issued by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner in relation to recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,14,642 plus Rs. 2 with its all consequential effects throughout whatsoever with immediate effect. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has also prayed for issuing mandamus commanding the respondents (i) not to recover the alleged amount of Rs. 3,14,642. 39 contained in the recovery certificate as well as recovery notice from the petitioner either in cash or by way of making attachment of his movable and immovable property and selling the same in the auction proceedings. (ii) to decide his representation dated 9. 8. 1999 contained in Annexures-7 and 7a to the writ petition, and (iii) to refund the amount of TDR/fixed Deposit Amount of Rs. 50,000 with the interest at the present bank rate accrued thereupon for last several years and further to pay the commission and loss suffered by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs due to non-performance of the contract No. 12 dated 16. 11. 1991 (Annexure-7a) by respondent No. 1. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has further prayed for withdrawal of the recovery certificate dated 15. 10. 1998 and recovery notice dated 5. 6. 1999 with its all consequential effects. ( 4 ) THE fact, inter alia, relating to the writ petition are that in the year 1984 the petitioner was appointed as an authorised dealer by respondent No. 1 and an agreement was executed containing the terms and conditions of the business agreed to be carried on between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. On 22. 9. 1995 respondent No. 1 issued a demand notice and on 16. 10. 1995, a legal notice was issued to the petitioner whereby a sum of Rs. 1,19,619. 05 and Rs. 1,95,021. 34 total Rs. 3,14. 640. 39 were shown due against the petitioner. On 23. 11. 1995 petitioner submitted his reply to the demand notice and the legal notice through his lawyer. A recovery certificate was Issued on 15. 10. 1998 by respondent No. 1 to the Collector/dy. 1,19,619. 05 and Rs. 1,95,021. 34 total Rs. 3,14. 640. 39 were shown due against the petitioner. On 23. 11. 1995 petitioner submitted his reply to the demand notice and the legal notice through his lawyer. A recovery certificate was Issued on 15. 10. 1998 by respondent No. 1 to the Collector/dy. Commissioner, District Mumbai, through the Collector Kanpur Nagar. which was forwarded by respondent No. 3 through its letter dated 24. 10. 1998. On 5. 6. 1999 respondent No. 3 issued recovery notice to the petitioner claiming a sum of Rs. 3,14,642. 39 plus Rs. 2 in pursuance to the recovery certificate dated 15. 10. 1998. The petitioner on 19. 8. 1999 filed his representation before the Manager, Marketing to the department of respondent No. 1 annexing therewith a copy of contract No. 12. ( 5 ) IT appears from the record that the matter arises out of a contract of dealership by which the petitioner was appointed as an authorized dealer and an agreement had been entered into between U. P. State Textile Corporation Limited and M/s. Maheshwari Brothers. The relevant clauses of the agreement are set out hereinbeiow : "3. That the Corporation shall supply the goods to the dealer at their ex-mill price exclusive of excise duty and any other taxes imposed from time to time. But endeavour shall be made to affect supplies in time but the Corporations shall not accept any liability for unforced delay in dispatch of goods or inability to supply the goods ordered by the dealer for reasons beyond its means. 4. That the goods will be supplied on the terms and conditions of the sales contract from time to time, read with the conditions contained herein provided that in case of inconsistency between the two, the provisions of this contract shall prevail. 5. That the Corporations dealings with the dealer shall be on principal to principal basis and the corporation shall not in any way be responsible for the dealers dealings with the third parties. 6. That the Corporation will supply goods to the dealers against payment in cash by bank draft or by documents drawn through or bankers at respective mills as the case may be, depositing upon the policy in force from lime to time. 6. That the Corporation will supply goods to the dealers against payment in cash by bank draft or by documents drawn through or bankers at respective mills as the case may be, depositing upon the policy in force from lime to time. That in case the documents are drawn on D. D. limit, any bank commission, interest or other charges that may be charged by the bankers would be borne by the dealer. 7. That in case documents are drawn on bill collection basis or sent to M. O. direct for collection, interest on bill amount @ 20% per annum shall be payable by the dealer from the day following the date of the bill upto the date of actual payment. 8. That in case the documents are received back unpaid from the bankers or the documents sent to Head Office direct for collection, are not paid within 15 days of the intimation to the dealer, an interest or bill amount @ 24% p. a. shall be payable by the dealer from the day following the date of the bill upto the date of actual payment. 9. If the documents are not retired by the buyers in time or buyers do not take delivery or goods offered to them after making payment, the company reserves the right to cancel the contract without further reference to the buyers. If any loss is occurred to the company, the same shall be recoverable from the buyers but the buyers will not be entitled to any difference in price on such cancellation. 10. That on satisfactory performance, the Corporation shall allow incentive bonus at the rates decided by the Sales Committee from time to time. 13. That the Corporation shall have the right to sell directly or indirectly sized yard on beams and/or any other yarn from time to time or use the same themselves in processing as weaving etc. , without any reference to the said dealer, who shall not be entitled to any incentive whatsoever on such transactions. 17. That in the event of breach of any terms mentioned in this agreement, the Corporation shall be entitled to claim damages from the loss suffered apart from forfeiting the security, if the loss suffered is less than the amount of security deposit then only security deposit shall stand forfeited. 24. 17. That in the event of breach of any terms mentioned in this agreement, the Corporation shall be entitled to claim damages from the loss suffered apart from forfeiting the security, if the loss suffered is less than the amount of security deposit then only security deposit shall stand forfeited. 24. That all questions and disputes relating to or arising out of the contract, whether during the continuance of the contract or after its completion or abandonment shall be referred to Chairman, u. P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. or his nominee as sole Arbitrator and his decision upon such dispute or difference shall be final and binding on the parties. " ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner has referred to Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and has submitted that the said recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue can be initiated only under the said section which is not applicable in the instant case. The contention of the writ petitioner is that there was no direct loan transaction between respondent No. 1 and the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was appointed, according to the agreement on the basis of which loan was advanced, to act as authorized dealer and as such, the dealer-writ petitioner, is supplying goods to different parties. The provision contained in section (3) (1) (a) pertains to agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant or relating to eredil in respect of or relating to hire purchase of goods sold to the dealer by the State Government or the Corporation, by way of financial assistance. The writ petitioner is neither carrying on business on hire purchase nor the goods have been sold to the petitioner by the Corporation by way of financial assistance. Sub-section (1) (b) of Section 3 is also not applicable, according to the writ petitioner, since the agreement in the instant case, is not relating to a loan, advance or grant or relating to credit in respect of, or relating to hire purchase of goods sold to the petitioner by a banking company or a Government company, as the case may be, under the State sponsored scheme. Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the said Act is set out herein below : "3 (1 ). Subsection (1) of Section 3 of the said Act is set out herein below : "3 (1 ). Where any person is party : (a) to any agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant given to him or relating to credit in respect of, or relating to hire purchase of. goods sold to him by the State Government or the corporation, by way of financial assistance : or (b) to any agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant given to him or relating to credit in respect of, or relating to hire purchase of goods sold to him, by a banking company or a government company, as the case may be, under a State sponsored scheme : or (c) to any agreement relating to a guarantee given by the State Government or the Corporation in respect of a loan raised by an industrial concern : or (d) to any agreement providing that any money payable thereunder to the State Government (or the Corporation) shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue : and such person- (i) makes any default in repayment of the loan or advance or instalment thereof : or (ii) having become liable under the conditions of the grant to refund the grant or any portion thereof, makes any default in the refund of such grant or portion or any instalment thereof ; or (iii) otherwise fails to comply with the terms of the agreement ; then in the case of the State Government, such officer as may be authorized in that behalf by the state Government by notification in the official Gazette, and in the case of the Corporation or a government company the Managing Director (or where there is no Managing Director then the chairman of the Corporation, by whatever name called) thereof, and in the case of a banking company, the local agent thereof, by whatever name called, may send a certificate, to the collector, mentioning the sum due from such person and requesting that such sum together with costs of the proceedings be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue. " ( 7 ) IN our view, there is no dispute that the writ petitioner has taken the goods from the State textile Corporation Ltd. and is liable to pay the amount due and payable for the same. " ( 7 ) IN our view, there is no dispute that the writ petitioner has taken the goods from the State textile Corporation Ltd. and is liable to pay the amount due and payable for the same. The corporation in the instant case is in the position of a creditor and the writ petitioners is in the position of debtor in respect of the textile goods received by the writ petitioner from the corporation and the writ petitioner is under an obligation to make payment for the same. It cannot be disputed that the goods have been sold to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner has not paid the amount, which has become due and payable in respect of the said goods. It appears that there is an agreement, which relates to goods sold to the writ petitioner on principal to principal basis and for the amount due in respect of these goods, the Corporation can enforce the same as creditor pursuant to the agreement mentioned hereinbefore. It also appears from Section 3 (1) (d) of the Act if any money is due and payable to the State Government or the Corporation, the same shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. On proper interpretation of Section 3 (1) of the said Act. It appears that since the money is recoverable on the basis of the goods sold to the writ petitioner, the U. P. State Textile Corporation can claim as creditor to enforce the said agreement and may take steps for issuance of certificate in terms of Section 3 (1) of the Act. The said Act has been enacted for the purpose of speedy recovery of debts and as such we are of view that the Corporation is right in issuing the certificate for recovery of the dues in the manner as it has done in the instant case. Our view also finds support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Jaishree Poultry Feed Industries v. State of U. P. and others. 1991 ACJ 47. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING all aspects of the matter, we are of view that there is no scope for quashing the certificate as prayed for by the writ petitioner. There appears no merits in the writ petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 1991 ACJ 47. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING all aspects of the matter, we are of view that there is no scope for quashing the certificate as prayed for by the writ petitioner. There appears no merits in the writ petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) IN the result the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. .