Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the prayer is for quashing of the certificate, contained in Annexure-6, and the certificate proceedings arising therefrom in Certificate Case No. BICICO/131 of 2002 initiated for recovery of BICICO loan. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is the borrower Company, which took two term loans from the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (in short BICICO). The first term loan was taken in the year 1983 under the Standard Loan Agreement executed between the parties on 15-11-1983, a photocopy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-7. In Clause 10.5 of the Agreement, the borrower Company agreed that it would be open to the BICICO to recover its due or dues either by way of filing the certificate case under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act or by way of filing suit or suits. 3. The borrower Company took another loan from the BICICO in the year 1987, which was a term loan under the Equipment Finance Scheme. The agreement for the said loan was executed on 6-3-1987 and a photo copy where of been annexed as Annexure-8. This agreement was very brief and it does not contain any clause corresponding to Clause 10.5 of the Standard Loan Agreement of the year 1983. Under this Agreement, the borrower has not expressed its consent or agreement that the loan amount would be recoverable as a public demand. 4. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are sureties in regard to both the loans taken by the borrower Company and they had executed deeds of guarantee for repayment of the BICICOs dues against the borrower Company. In the deeds of guarantee, there was no stipulation that the money recoverable from the sureties would be payable by them to the BICICO as a public demand nor is there any other instrument in writing in which such an undertaking or agreement was made by them on their behalf. 5. In the deeds of guarantee, there was no stipulation that the money recoverable from the sureties would be payable by them to the BICICO as a public demand nor is there any other instrument in writing in which such an undertaking or agreement was made by them on their behalf. 5. This Court, vide order dated 22-5-2003, held that the case of the two sureties is, therefore, fully covered by the recent decision of this Court dated 1-5-2003 in C.W.J.C. No. 12155 of 2002 (Sunil Kumar Mehrotra V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 501 of 2003, (Janardan Prasad Singh V/s. The Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited and Ors.) and, thus, the writ petition, in so far as petitioners No. 2 and 3 are concerned, was allowed for the same reasons and in the same terms as the earlier two writ petitions and certificate case pending before the certificate office, BICICO was quashed in so far as petitioners No. 2 and 3 were concerned. However, with regard to the borrower Company, it was contended that the two loans taken by the Company were separate from each other and were given to the Company under two separate agreements. In the first agreement, there was an stipulation that the due or dues of the BICICO would be recoverable as public demand, but there was no similar stipulation in the second agreement with regard to the second loan. He, therefore, had submitted that in so far as the dues pertaining to the second loan is concerned, the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act are not attracted and it is not open to the BICICO to issue a consolidated certificate for the dues in regard to both the loans. He had further submitted that it would, of course, be open to the BICICO to institute a certificate case for realisation of its due or dues in regard to the first term loan of the year 1983 but that loan must be treated as separate and no certificate case for realisation of the due or dues in regard to the term loan of 1987 can be instituted against the borrower Company for want of the necessary stipulation in the 1987 agreement. Mr. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the BICICO submitted that Clause 10.5 of the 1983 agreement was sufficiently wide to cover all due or dues of the company relating to that loan or any other future loans. The Court felt that the matter required some consideration and thus adjourned for its listing two weeks after summer vacation. 6. Thus, now the only question remains to be considered is as to whether in the absence of the provisions as contained in Clause 10.5 of 1983 agreement, in 1987 agreement, the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act are attracted for realisation of due or dues in regard to term loan of 1987 against the borrower Company. 7. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard and they advanced the same contention with respect to the realisation of the due or dues in regard to the term loan of 1987 as was advanced on the earlier occasion, referred to above. 8. The first agreement of 1983 has been annexed as. Annexure-A and the second agreement of 1987 has been annexed as Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the BICICO (Respondent No. 2). Bare perusal of the first agreement shows that the Company agreed that the BICICO, if so likes, may recover its due or dues from the Company either by way of filing certificate case under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act or by way of filing suit or suits in the competent Court of law having jurisdiction over the matter, as the case may arise. 9. Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the BICICO relying upon the words "may recover its due or dues from the Company" submitted that the said Clause 10.5 covers the realisation of the dues even under the second agreement. 10. I am unable to accept the said submission of Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel has failed to show from the second agreement that there is any reference even of the first agreement. It is completely an independent agreement under the scheme to provide quick finance under simplified procedure to well established Small and Medium Scale Industrial Unit for acquisition of capital goods/equipments not related to any specific project, both indigenous and imported, known as "Equipment Finance Scheme". It does not carry such clause like 10.5, as contained in the first agreement. 11. It is completely an independent agreement under the scheme to provide quick finance under simplified procedure to well established Small and Medium Scale Industrial Unit for acquisition of capital goods/equipments not related to any specific project, both indigenous and imported, known as "Equipment Finance Scheme". It does not carry such clause like 10.5, as contained in the first agreement. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to hold that the certificate case for realisation of the due or dues in regard to the term loan under the said agreement of 1987 can be instituted against the borrower Company without meeting the requirement of public demand as provided in Clause 15 of Schedule I, which provides that such money is recoverable as public demand only if the person liable to pay the same has agreed by a written instrument. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the certificate case instituted by the respondent-BICICO for realisation of its due or dues in regard to the term loan of 1987 cannot proceed and it is, accordingly, quashed. However, it will be open for Respondent No. 2 to separate the two loans and continue with the certificate case by filing supplementary certificate for realisation of dues in regard to the first term loan taken in the year 1983 and the certificate officer shall proceed in the matter accordingly. As regards the dues with respect to the second loan, the respondent BICICO will be at liberty to proceed in the matter afresh by availing appropriate remedy, in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.