Tarun Agarwala, J.:- Heard Shri Sudhir Kumar, learned Counsel holding the brief of Shri Vivek Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.S. Patni, the learned Counsel for the Municipal Board Parishad, Nainital. 2. The facts, leading to the filing of the writ petition, is that a contract for entry of vehicles in Nainital was awarded to the petitioner on a license fee of Rs. 1,85,40,000/-, for the period 1st April, 2009 to 31st March, 2010. A contract was executed and under Clause 11 thereof, 50 per cent of the license fee was required to be paid by the petitioner at the time of the execution of the contract. The remaining 50 per cent of the license fee was required to be paid in two equal installments, i.e. 25 per cent in July 2009, and the balance 25 per cent in September 2009, which was extendable till 15th October. It was stated in Clause 11 that failure to deposit the amount on the due dates would lead to the automatic cancellation of the contract, and the balance amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Similar provision for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue was provided in Clause 18. Clause 21 of the contract provided for invoking the arbitration in case of any dispute. 3. Soon after the expiry of the contract period, the petitioner raised a dispute and approached the High Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court, by an order of 23.4.2010, appointed the District Magistrate, Nainital as the Arbitrator. It is alleged that arbitration proceedings are still pending before the Arbitrator. It transpires that the license fee was not fully paid by the petitioner, and consequently, a recovery certificate dated 18.5.2010 was issued for the recovery of Rs. 14,88,500/-. The petitioner protested and filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for stay of the recovery, which application was rejected by the Court concerned by an order of 15.2.2011. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also rejected by an order of 22.2.2011. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of the recovery certificate, has filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no recovery certificate could be issued for the recovery of the amount payable under a contract. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also rejected by an order of 22.2.2011. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the issuance of the recovery certificate, has filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no recovery certificate could be issued for the recovery of the amount payable under a contract. The learned Counsel submitted that unless there was a law or a statute, which provide recovery of such amount under a contract as arrears of land revenue, only then a recovery certificate could be issued, otherwise, merely because the contract mentions that such amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue, would by itself be insufficient to issue a recovery certificate. The learned Counsel submitted that mere mention of recovery as arrears of land revenue in the contract was by itself insufficient. The learned Counsel submitted that there was no such provision under the Municipalities Act for recovery of an amount under the contract as arrears of land revenue. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chirganji Lal v. The Collector & Others, 1973 RD 422 ; Mumtaz Ali v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Anr. 1970 ALJ 114; Gaon Panchayat Kulpahar & Anr. v. Munna Lal, 1975 ALJ 40, and Titu Singh v. District Magistrate/Collector, Mathura & Others, (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1283 , wherein, in similar circumstances, a Theka for Tehbazari, parking fee etc. was issued, and when the Theka money or parking fee was not given, the contract was cancelled and the balance amount was sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The High Court held that such recovery as arrears of land revenue for the balance amount under the contract could not be recovered, and that the same could be recovered under the civil law. The learned Counsel, accordingly, submitted that the recovery certificate is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the respondent Muncipal Board Parishad would be deemed to be a Corporation, as provided under Section 2(a) of the U.P. Public Moneys Recovery of Dues Act, 1972, and consequently, the amount could be recovered as arrears of the land revenue under Section 3(1)(d) of the Said Act. 6. 6. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents seems to be attractive in the first blush, but on the closer scrutiny, the Court finds that the opposite party is not a Corporation as defined under Section 2(a) since no such notification to that effect has been issued by the State Government nor placed before the Court. Consequently, the Act of 1972 cannot be invoked, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Iqbal Naseer Usmani v. Central Bank of India & Others, (2006) 2 SCC 241 . 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to show any provision under the Municipalities Act or under any statute by which the balance amount under a contract could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The mere fact that a mention is made in the contract for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue is by itself insufficient. 8. However, the Court finds that inspite of the fact that the recovery sought by the respondents cannot be justified, the Court is of the opinion that no writ could be issued in favour of the petitioner since it does not find it to be a fit case where the Court should exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In order to get a relief from the Court, it is necessary for the petitioner to show that the respondents are violating the law and that the petitioner must further show that equity is also in his favour, which unfortunately, the Court finds it to be lacking in the present case. The petitioner entered into a contract to pay a certain amount of license fee on various dates. He executed the contract with open eyes, but failed to pay the balance license fee. By invoking the arbitration clause and raising a dispute and contending that the balance license fee was liable to be adjusted in the damages sought by the petitioner, is not permissible in the opinion of the Court, nor can the recovery of the balance amount be stayed till the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The Court is of the opinion that the adjustment of license fee from the damages cannot be done. 9. The Court is of the opinion that the adjustment of license fee from the damages cannot be done. 9. Assuming that the respondents have violated the law in issuing the recovery certificate since the recovery could not be made as arrears of land revenue, yet the Court is of the opinion that equity is not in favour of the petitioner. The Court finds that the petitioner has not disputed his liability to pay the amount under the contract, and that the present writ petition is only an exercise to delay the payment. 10. In Rakesh Shukla v. District Magistrate/SDM, Phulpur, Allahabad, 2002 (2) UPLBEC 1939 , a Division Bench, in similar circumstances, refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inspite of finding that the recovery certificate had wrongly been issued, since it found that equity was not in favour of the petitioner. The said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.