JUDGMENT 1. - The Executive Engineer (B & R), Sriganganagar vide Annx. dated 6.9.1975 issued a certificate to the Collector, Sriganganagar for recovery of Rs. 377355.97 from M/s. Jaspal Singh & Co. who were their contractor. The above recovery was to be made under the Rajasthan Public Demand Recovery Act, 1952. The break-up details of the amount demanded from the petitioner has been mentioned in Annex. 1, which is as under : 1. Cost of material issued for works & works not executed at their cost & risk Rs. 37,562.17 2. Amount of compensation ordered by the Chief Engineer & Superintending Engineer for the left in-complete works under clause 2 of the agreement. Rs. 61,878.80 3. Amount paid in excess as per Secy to Govt. Confidential letter No dated received through the Chief Engineer PWD (B & R) Raj. Jaipur's letter No. Dated Rs. 2,77,915.97 Total Rs. 3,77,355.97 2. When the Collector proceeded to recovery above amount, the petitioner challenged the same by raising various objections vide Annx. 5 before it, about lack of very foundation of the case and jurisdiction & authority for recovery of the alleged amount. According to him, the demand was not recoverable under the Act of 1952 and its recovery was barred by law. The liabilities were also denied. The above objections were resisted by the Department vide petition Annx. 6. A rejoinder by the petitioner vide Annx. 7 was also submitted. However, the Collector, Sriganganagar vide order dated 21.12.1982 allowed the petition of the petitioner in respect of Rs. 277915/- by finding that there was nothing on record to show that the above amount was determined by the Chief Engineer, after affording any opportunity of hearing to the contractor. It was further directed by the Collector that the Additional Chief Engineer should hear the contractor and and thereafter, should send a separate requisition with regard to above amount. However, for the remaining amount of rs. 37562.17 and Rs. 61878.80, the Collector, Sriganganagar disallowed objections of the petitioner vide order Annx. 8 dated 21.12.1982. 3. The above order of the Collector was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner who substantially disallowed the appeal except reduction of amount of Rs. 7915/-, which amount was with regard to work of construction of a road to High School in Padampur. 8 dated 21.12.1982. 3. The above order of the Collector was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner who substantially disallowed the appeal except reduction of amount of Rs. 7915/-, which amount was with regard to work of construction of a road to High School in Padampur. Aggtisvedr against above order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The respondent State of Rajasthan also filed a revision petition, against the order reducing amount of Rs. 7915/-. Both the revision petitions were disposed of by common judgment dated 30.9.1991. The revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed with observation that under the PDR Act, the defaulter can raise protest only on two grounds, enumerated under section 8 of the Act and nothing except this should be addressed. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that admittedly the recovery was ab initio invalid and illegal and no proceedings under the Act should be taken on the basis of letter Annx. 1 issued by the Executive Engineer. It is further submitted that deficiencies pointed out by the Collector vide Annx. 2 go to root of the matter as the recovery proceedings had no foundation to stand. Certain other difficulties were also pointed out, which according to learned counsel for petitioner, goes to root of the proceedings. Before the Collector, the petitioner denied liability to pay the amount demanded by the Executive Engineer and even has challenged the jurisdiction of the authority to recover the alleged amount. Learned counsel relied on Maula Bux v. UOI, AIR 1970 SC 1955 : Sahib Ram & Co. v. RSANB, 1995(1) WLC 246 ; State of Karnataka v. Rameshwar Rice Mills, AIR 1987 SC 1359 ; and UOI v. Rama lyyer & Foundary, AIR 1974 SC 1283 . 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for non-petitioners supported the impugned order, stating that under section 8 of the PDR Act, the defaulter is entitled to deny the liability on the grounds that the demand is not recoverable under this Act or that its recovery by suit is barred by law for time being in force. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for non-petitioners supported the impugned order, stating that under section 8 of the PDR Act, the defaulter is entitled to deny the liability on the grounds that the demand is not recoverable under this Act or that its recovery by suit is barred by law for time being in force. If the defaulter wanted to challenge the recovery certificate on any other grounds then he had to proceed under section 20 of the Act of 1952 for cancellation or modification of the certificate or for any other consequential relief to which he may be entitled. Such a suit can be brought within 6 months from the issuance of notice sent to him under section 6 of the Act or from the date of determination of petition denying liability etc. The petitioner has not proceeded under section 20 of the Act of 1952 and has raised almost all grounds mentioned in that section yet has raised objection under section 20 of the Act, which were not tenable. Under section 8 of the Act of 1952 the petitioner was entitled to only following two grounds-viz. the demand is not recoverable under this Act or that its recovery by suit is barred by law. Neither in the courts below it has been averred that the recovery-was barred by any law nor it has been sufficiently stated that how the demand was not recoverable under this Act. 6. The pronouncements relied on by the petitioner were related to some other matter arising under the Transfer of Property Act or contract Act or Sales of Goods Act. As referred above, the defaulter was at liberty either to file a suit under Section 20 of the Act of 1952 or to raise his two objections under section 8 of the Act, referred above. Even during arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate how the amount referred in the certificate Annx. 1 was not recoverable under the Act of 1952. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that contract for the work was executed between the petitioner and non- petitioner No. 5, who was Executive Engineer, PWD, Sriganganagar. The details of the amount have been given in the certificate itself. Rs. 37562.17 were outstanding against petitioner towards cost of material issued by the PWD and was to be used by the petitioner for executing the work. Rs. The details of the amount have been given in the certificate itself. Rs. 37562.17 were outstanding against petitioner towards cost of material issued by the PWD and was to be used by the petitioner for executing the work. Rs. 61878.80 were outstanding as compensation ordered by the Chief Engineer for the incomplete work under clause (2) of the agreement, which was got done subsequently by some other agency. Similarly, Rs. 277915.97 was excess amount which was paid to the petitioner as per Secretary to Government's Confidential letter. Nowhere it has been pointed out during course of arguments nor it has been specifically mentioned in the petitioner how the above amount is not recoverable under the Act of 1952. If the petitioner wanted to contest the matter on its merit, he was at liberty to file a suit under section 20 of the Act. Before filing the suit, petitioner had to deposit outstanding amount. The petitioner on one hand thought it fit not to file the suit because he did not want to deposit the outstanding amount and contested the matter before the Collector, Sriganganagar. in the proceedings under the PDR Act. In such situation, only two grounds mentioned under section 8 of the Act could be available to the petitioner. He was not at liberty to contest the matter on merits or on any other grounds before the Collector. 8. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******