Judgment Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. The present four Writ applications have been taken up together and with the consent of the parties have been heard at the stage of admission itself for final disposal as they all involved similar facts and common question of law. 2. In the four Writ applications the challenge is the order passed by respondent No. 2, Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, dated 8.12.2004. The said order has been passed in four revision applications preferred by Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer being Revision Case Nos. 191,193,192 and 190 of 2004 respectively. All the four revision applications were disposed of by the said common order. By the said order the revision applications were allowed and while setting aside the order of subordinate authority i.e. Commissioner of Bhagalpur and the Collector, Bhagalpur, it was held that the petitioners were liable to pay interest under Sec. 17 of the Bihar Public Demand Recover, Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the respective certificate dues in the four-certificate cases instituted by the respondent-Municipal Corporation for realisation of arrears of municipal tax. The four certificate cases are Certificate Case No. 1 3/1996-97, M 10/1995-99, M 1/1993-94 and M 2/1996-97 respectively in relation to the four writ applications aforesaid. As against these four certificate cases, the proceedings before the Collector Bhagalpur were registered as Certificate (Appeal) Case Nos. 70,72,72 and 71 of 2003-04 from which arose Misc. Certificate Case Nos. 10,5,9 and 6 of 2003-04 before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur, from which the revision applications as aforesaid were preferred before the Member, Board of Revenue. 3. It appears that the respective petitioners were in possession of certain godowns within the jurisdiction of Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation. Their predecessor-in-interest were assessed the municipal tax, which was disputed by them before various forums and ultimately a total liability in respect of the above four certificate cases and two other certificate cases was assessed at over Rs. 68 lakhs. The same not having been discharged. Six certificate cases were instituted. The petitioners filed their objections to the said certificate cases and the matter was being contested. In the meantime, the then owner of the said premises died and the next generation stepped in, who were also aged people. 68 lakhs. The same not having been discharged. Six certificate cases were instituted. The petitioners filed their objections to the said certificate cases and the matter was being contested. In the meantime, the then owner of the said premises died and the next generation stepped in, who were also aged people. They decided not to linger the dispute any longer as the liabilities were endrmous and as such approached the respondent-Corporation for an amicable settlement. The offered that if permitted reasonable instalments they were agreeable to pay the principal amount of certificate dues, without any liability to pay interest as envisaged u/s. 17 of the Act. It is not in dispute that initially, so far as two cases were concerned, the respondent-corporation agreed and accordingly on payment of the principal amount the certificate proceeding was closed on compromise. The two certificate proceedings were closed on compromise as is evident by order dated 28.7.2001 passed by the Certificate Court in relation to those two cases, which orders have been annexed as Annexures 5 and 5A respectively to all the four Writ applications. Before other cases could similarly be closed by permitting payment of principal amount in instalments without liability to pay interest the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation changed. It is not in dispute that in the remaining four cases steps for executing the certificate were not taken. In two cases the objection itself was yet to be considered. Petitioners apprehended that new Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation was not readily inclined to grant long suitable instalments filed separate applications u/s. 59 of the Act before the Collector, who is the supervisory authority over the certificate officer before whom the proceedings were pending. They prayed in their said application that they were ready to pay the certificate amount provided they were granted reasonable instalments considering the heavy amount that was to be considered and subject to waiver of interest. It is not disputed that on filing of the aforesaid application before the Collector u/s. 59 of the Act the same was registered as Certificate (Appeal) Case as noted above and the Collector called for records. From order-dated 27.8.2003 of the Collector it is clear that petitioners informed the Court that they had deposited substantial sum i.e. almost 25% of the certificate dues. On this 1 he Collector then admitting case and ordered for putting up for hearing on 29.8.2003. From order-dated 27.8.2003 of the Collector it is clear that petitioners informed the Court that they had deposited substantial sum i.e. almost 25% of the certificate dues. On this 1 he Collector then admitting case and ordered for putting up for hearing on 29.8.2003. Order dated 29.8.2003 clearly shows that both the parties were present. It is not disputed that the Corporation being the certificate holder was one of the party and was duty represented. It is then noted that lower court records had been received. It is then recorded that the Collector granted six months time to pay of the rest of the certificate amount in six instalments. it is stated by the petitioners that this order was in view of their prayer and the Collector having accepted that granted instalments without directing payment of interest, as was prayed by them. It is then evident that within less than two months thereafter, as against six months time granted, the petitioners deposited the entire certificate dues and informed the Collector and thus the Collector recorded that the certificate case is closed on account of payment of the demand placed before this Court and the claims have been satisfactorily settled between the parties. Thus effectively the certificate proceedings were thus terminated on satisfaction of the certificate dues without any further steps being taken. 4. It is not in dispute that no party raised any objection as to the earlier order of the Collector dated 29.8.2003 by which he had ordered for payment of certificate dues alone in instalments in six months. The Corporation did not object to that order and now once the entire payment is made and appropriated by the corporation, it then filed our revisions as indicated above before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur assailing the order dated 6.10.2003 of the Collector by which as noted above he closed the certificate proceedings. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur division by his order dated 17.3.2004 rejected the revision applications filed by the Corporation holding that as the Corporation had not objected to the order passed by the Collector on 29.8.2003 in any manner rather it accepted payments in full satisfaction of the certificate. It was clear that no further interest was payable and there was an agreement apparent as between the parties who were represented before the Collector. It was clear that no further interest was payable and there was an agreement apparent as between the parties who were represented before the Collector. He further held that once the entire principal amount of certificate was paid there was no justification in invoking the Act merely for enforcement of payment of interest. While doing so the Commissioner noted the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Purtabpore Company Limited V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. since reported in 1979(2) BLJ 279 also reported in 1978 BBCJ 536 . To this case I will advert later. Against these orders the corporation filed four revision applications as noted above before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, which were disposed of. by the impugned order dated 8.12.2004 by which he allowed the revision applications and set aside the order of the Commissioner and the Collector. Even though he noticed that there was no dispute that when the Collector pass 3d the order dated 29.8.2003, which was passed in presence of both the parties and none of the parties challenged that order. He held that no sooner certificate proceedings are instituted by virtue of sec. 17 of the Act, interest is automatically payable along with cost as contemplate I under sections 17 and 45 of the Act respectively. It is this finding that is under challenge in the present writ applications. 5. The scheme of the Act , in so far as is relevant that when a demand which is a public demand is payable to any person other than Collector, a requisition in Form II as provided u/s. 5 of the Act is to be filed. Section 6 then provides that in the same is found to be recoverable and not barred by law the certificate officer is to sign a certificate stating that the demand is due and shall include in the certificate the fee, if any, paid u/s. 5 and shall cause the certificate to be filed in his office. Once the certificate is so filed sec. 7 provides for issuance of notice on the certificate debtor along with copy of the certificate. Once the certificate is so filed sec. 7 provides for issuance of notice on the certificate debtor along with copy of the certificate. Once the notice is served then as contemplated u/s. 9 the certificate debtor is entitled to file a petition denying his liability before a certificate officer, which is then to be heard and the liability of the certificate debtor has to be determined under Sec. 10 of the Act. Once the liability is so determined u/s. 1C then the provision of sec. 12, which is contained in Part III of the Act relating to execution starts. sec. 14 clearly provides that no steps for execution of certificate shall be taken until the petition denying liability has been heard and determined. sec. 15 then provides for mode of execution which is either by attachment and sale of any property or by arresting the certificate debtor or both. sec. 17 is the material provision with which we are concerned and is quoted hereunder: Interest, costs and charges recoverable.- There shall be recoverable, in the proceedings 1n execution of every certificate filed under this Act,- (a) interest upon the public demand to which the certificate relates at the rate of twelve percentum annum from the date of the signing of the certificate up to the date of realisation. (b) such costs are directed to be paid u/s. 45, and (c) all charges incurred in respect of- (i) the service of notice u/s. 7 and of warrants and processes. (ii) all other proceedings taken for realising the demand. 6. A reference to the said provision would show that interest as contemplated under sec. 17(a) or cost as directed to be paid u/s. 45 can be recovered only in the proceedings in execution of certificate. To my mind it has been rightly urged on behalf of the petitioner that in event the certificate is not required to be put in execution, as would be the case when the certificate dues are paid in full before it is put in execution no interest or charges would be recoverable and sec. 17 would not come into play. A bare reference to Sec. 17 would show that right to recover the interest and other charges comes into play only in a proceeding for execution of the certificate. 17 would not come into play. A bare reference to Sec. 17 would show that right to recover the interest and other charges comes into play only in a proceeding for execution of the certificate. If the certificate is satisfied before its execution then, there being no execution possible, the question of recovery of interest does not arise as the proceedings stand terminated prior to reaching the stage of Part III of the Act i.e. before the stage of execution of the certificate. 7. In the present case it is not in dispute that in two cases there was no adjudication even of petitions denying liability u/s. 10 and therefore in terms of sec. 14 there was a clear bar in proceedings with execution. In other two cases before any step could be taken for execution certificate dues as determined was already paid. Thus in all four cases the certificate was fully satisfy even before any step for its execution could be taken in accordance with law. 8. In taking this view I am fortified by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Purtabore Company Limited, as referred to above. The facts of that case are also similar. Their Lordships in the said Division Bench judgment in para 5 have noticed the statutory provisions of the Act. The question was the same as in the present. Their Lordships held thus: Looking to the language of sec. 17 it is manifest that the mandatory provision of the payment of interest in Clause (a) and the charges incurred under different heads in Clause (c) and the discretionary award of costs as contemplated by Clause (b) of sec. 17 read with sec. 54 of the Act can come into play and the same shall be recoverable only in the proceedings in execution of a certificate filed under this Act. The basic question to ask in such cases is whether the recovery has been made in the proceedings for execution of such a certificate. Has the Certificate Officer executed the certificate or started a proceeding in execution thereof ? Has any step in execution of a certificate been taken ? has any of the modes of execution as contemplated by sec. 15 of the Act been restored to ? Has the Certificate Officer executed the certificate or started a proceeding in execution thereof ? Has any step in execution of a certificate been taken ? has any of the modes of execution as contemplated by sec. 15 of the Act been restored to ? If the answer to these questions be in the affirmative- can the quest on of interest under Clause (a) and other charges under Clause (c) must be awarded and recovered, whereas the costs as envisaged in Clause (b) of sec. 17 read with Section 54 of the Act may in the discretion of the Certificate Officer be so awarded and recovered. If on the contrary the answer to these questions be in the negative, then there is no proceeding in execution of a certificate in which the mandatory provision of recovery of interest under Clause (a) or charges described in Clause (c) or the discretionary award of costs under Clause (b) of sec. 17 read with sec. 54 of the Act can be enforced . As we have already noticed above, in the instant cases the petitioner in consequence of the agreement, or , even if it be without any agreement, between the State of Bihar and the petitioner, the petitioner had voluntarily made payments liquidating the entire principal dues before any step in execution of the certificates could be taken by Certificate Officer. And, that too at the request and or the report of the requisitioning officer, namely, the Cane Inspector, who had rightly given the Certificate Officer to understand that the entire dues had been already paid by the petitioner. In such circumstances, where no coercive measure by taking steps for execution of the certificate has been restored to, the provisions of sec. 17 cannot come into play. Once, therefore, on the report and at the instance of the requisitioning officer if the certificate cases had been struck off on satisfaction, it was not open to the Certificate Officer to revive those cases merely for the purpose of compelling the petitioner to pay interest and costs as envisaged in sec. 17. There was absolutely no justification in law for invoking the provisions of sec. 17 of the Act for the purpose of restoring the certificate cases to their original files merely for the enforcement of payment of interest and costs u/s. 17. 9. 17. There was absolutely no justification in law for invoking the provisions of sec. 17 of the Act for the purpose of restoring the certificate cases to their original files merely for the enforcement of payment of interest and costs u/s. 17. 9. To my mind the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court completely covers the present case and there is no escape from holding that no interest was payable much less in the manner in which it has been held by the Member, Board of Revenue which apparently proceeded on the basis that no sooner a certificate is filed, interest starts accruing even before the stage of execution. I may, however, clarify that once a certificate is put in execution as contemplated under sec. 14 of the Act then interest would be calculated from the date of signing of the certificate but that does not mean that even before the certificate is put in execution the liability for payment and/or right of recovery of interest would accrue. Recovery of interest is only in course of execution proceeding and not before. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter on facts. If the Corporation had any mis-giving about what was recorded by the Collector in his order dated 29.8.2003, which was passed in their presence, then it was for the Corporation to move the Collector himself for correction of the records immediately. The Collector was the best judge what he had recorded and what he meant. The matter was fresh before him. Similarly so far as the Collectors order dated 6.10.2003 is concerned, again it was the Collector who ought to have been moved for correction of the records. In this connection one may useful refer to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Ram Das Shririvas Nayak and Anr. since reported in - and in particular the position in law as noticed in paras 4 and 7 thereof. This was not done and cannot be permitted to be done in appeal and subsequent revision proceeding. The order of Collector closing the proceedings recording settlement between the parties, thus, was final and rightly not interferred by the Commissioner who wrongfully set aside by the Member of Revenue. This principal has been reaffirmed in the case of Central Bank of India V/s. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi and Anr. since reported in -. The order of Collector closing the proceedings recording settlement between the parties, thus, was final and rightly not interferred by the Commissioner who wrongfully set aside by the Member of Revenue. This principal has been reaffirmed in the case of Central Bank of India V/s. Vrajlal Kapurchand Gandhi and Anr. since reported in -. 11. There is yet a third dimention. If the Corporation had any objection to the order of the Collector passed in their presence on 29.8.2003 they ought not to have been accepted the entire amount of certificate dues without demur. It is not permissible for them to turn around and ask for more because it is well settled that a party cannot approbate and reapprobate at the same tine. One may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nagubaiammal and Ors. V/s. B Samera and Ors. since reported in - and in particular para 23 thereof. A party cannot be heard to say that I accept a part of the order which is in my favour regarding payment of instalments but I will not accept the other part closing the proceedings without interest. If the Corporation had any mis-giving in this regard they should not have accepted the payment and asked the certificate to be executed in which case on execution they would have been entitled I to interest. They did not do so. They accepted the payment without the certificate being put in execution and then pressed for interest recovery of which was not permissible 12. In fairness of the learned Counsel for the respondents I must note the reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.B.H.M. Jute Mills V/s. Certificate Officer since reported in -. On basis of the said authority it was submitted that payment of interest u/s. 17 could not be escaped. I have perused the said judgment. The fact in that case was totally different. In that case admittedly the certificate was put in execution and in course of execution proceedings the certificate dues were paid and then it was contended that interest was not payable. It is in that context the Apex Court held that interest as provided u/s. 17 of the Act was recoverable in a proceeding in execution of the certificate. This decision instead of helping the respondents goes against their stand. It is in that context the Apex Court held that interest as provided u/s. 17 of the Act was recoverable in a proceeding in execution of the certificate. This decision instead of helping the respondents goes against their stand. The said decision does not say that where the certificate is not put in execution still interest would be payable/recoverable. It only holds that once execution proceedings is levied, interest becomes recoverable. 13. In view of the above, I have no option but to quash the order of Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in all the four cases as noticed above. 14. Let a Writ of certiorari be accordingly issued quashing the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 15. The Writ applications thus stand allowed.