JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioners husband was a PDS dealer. He had a valid license. By virtue of the said license the respondent authority had released large quantity of rice for distribution under National Rojgar Guarantee Yojana. The husband of the petitioner was entrusted 402.26 quintals of rice under National Rojgar Guarantee Yojana and another 253.39 quintal of rice under Zila Parishad Quota. 2. The husband of the petitioner suddenly passed away on 27.11.2003. After his death the respondents authority started harassing the present petitioner demanding return of the rice or money in lieu. Petitioner pleaded helpless in the manner because her stand is that she is a Parda Nashin lady had nothing to do with the affairs of the PDS shop and there is no liability upon her after the death of the husband. 3. But this did not satisfy the respondents and a Certificate Case No, 1/05-06 came to be instituted against her. A demand for Rs. 4,09,125.00 was raised on the petitioner. The Certificate Officer issued direction for payments of the said amount vide order contained in Annexure-4. Petitioner decided to challenge this order by way of the present writ application. She wants quashing of the entire certificate proceeding as well as the direction issued under Annexure-4. 4. The first submission on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no liability upon her as she was not the dealer and there was no agreement between her and the respondent authority. Her second contention is that she is a Parda Nashin lady not involved in the day to day affairs of the business which was carried out by the husband and she cannot be now saddled with the responsibility. Enquiry had been carried out by the Supply Inspector and a report had been furnished. When the godown was searched only 50 Kgs. of rice was found and.that too was rotten. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be in a position to state as to what happened to the rest of the rice which was lifted by her husband under various schemes. 5. Yet another proposition is that the amount which is being claimed from the petitioner cannot be a Public Demand and therefore the money cannot be recovered as Public Demand. Several decisions have been cited in support of the above proposition. 6. 5. Yet another proposition is that the amount which is being claimed from the petitioner cannot be a Public Demand and therefore the money cannot be recovered as Public Demand. Several decisions have been cited in support of the above proposition. 6. The stand of the State however is that the petitioner has liability of the amount being claimed from her. It is recoverable under the Public Demands Recovery Act. In this regard the attention of the Court has been drawn to Section 7A read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Section 7A of the E.C. Act is reproduced for ready reference which is as follows: Section 7A. Power of Central Government to recover certain amount as arrears of land revenue. (1) Where any person, liable to (a) pay any amount in pursuance of any order made under Section 3, or (b) deposit any amount to the credit of any Account or Fund constituted by or in pursuance of any order made under that section, makes any default in paying or depositing the whole or any part of such amount, the amount in respect of which such default has been made shall whether such order was made before or after the commencement of the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 1984 (34 of 1984), and whether the liability of such person to pay or deposit such amount arose before or after such commencement be recoverable by Government together with simple interest due thereon computed at the rate of (fifteen per cent) per annum from the date of such default to the date of recovery of such amount, as an arrear of land revenue (or as a public demand). (2) The amount recovered under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with in accordance with the order under which the liability to pay or deposit such amount arose. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any contract to the contrary, no court, tribunal or other authority shall grant any injunction or make any order prohibiting or restraining any Government from recovering any amount as an arrear of land revenue (or as a public demand) in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1). (4) If any order, in pursuance of which any amount has been recovered by Government as an arrear of land revenue (or as a public demand) under sub-section (1) is declared by a competent court, after giving to the Government a reasonable opportunity of being heard, to be invalid, the Government shall refund the amount so recovered by it to the person from whom it was redovered, together with simple interest due thereon, computed at the rate of (fifteen per cent) per annum, from the date of recovery of such amount to the date on which such refund is made. Explanation.For the purposes of this section, "Government" means the Government by which the concerned order under Section 3 was made or where such order was made by an officer or authority subordinate to any Government, that Government. 7. If the above provision is taken into consideration read with Section 52 of the Public Demands Recovery Act there is no iota of doubt that a proceeding can be initiated under the Public Demands Recovery Act for recovery of the dues of the kind. No doubt the husband of the petitioner was the PDS dealer but then such dues are recoverable under the provisions, from the estate of the deceased. Enforcement of the order is not barred against the estate of the deceased. The helplessness expressed by the petitioner in this regard is of no avail in view of the clear statutory mandate under the abovenoted provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. 8. Keeping in view the rival contentions of the parties, the Court comes to a conclusion that in face of the provision 7A read with Section 3 of the E.C. Act the proceeding under Public Demands Recovery Act is maintainable. Ultimately how the recovery can be made is yet another issue for which this Court does not have to express its opinion. The Public Demands Recovery Act envisages such situation and the order would be enforced in accordance with the said provisions. Challenge to the proceeding therefore is mis-placed and there is no infirmity in the institution of the proceeding under Public Demand Recovery Act. 9. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed as such.