Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The petitioner is before this Court praying that” “Your Lordships be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the recovery certificate dated 23.06.1997 issued under the Gujarat Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979; and order passed by the Ld. Mamlatdar dtd. 29.12.2000, and all other consequential proceedings, as the same are bad, illegal, null and void and against the provisions of the Act as well as against the law laid down by this Hon’ble High Court and the Supreme Court of India.” 2. The facts of the case are in controversy as it is the case of the petitioner that he has supplied the goods to Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation on behalf of Respondent No. 1 herein and for supplying such bulk, the petitioner requested Respondent No. 1 to extend financial assistance to the petitioner which was accepted and Respondent No. 1 was pleased to extend financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 80 lacs. The facts which are not in dispute is that the goods supplied by the petitioner are stated to have been rejected by Kerala Civil Supplies Corporation, but nothing is on record as to on what particular ground the goods were rejected. Though it is on record that one officer of Respondent No. 1-Shri Saseendran was sent to Kerala to look into the matter, whose affidavit is produced on record which is accompanied by two reports of the said officer, but from that two reports, it nowhere comes out that the goods collected by that officer during his tour to Kerala were sent to the petitioner. 3. It is painful that a public body like Respondent No. 1 is functioning in such a haphazard manner. The result is also before the Court that Respondent No. 1 has already gone in liquidation and it is the Official Liquidator who is now defending the present petition. What is more important is that the present petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No. 85 of 2000 in the Court of learned Third Additional Senior Civil Judge, Godhra which came to be decreed by the learned Judge and a copy of the judgment is on record of this case. 4. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. JR Nanavati with Mr. What is more important is that the present petitioner filed Special Civil Suit No. 85 of 2000 in the Court of learned Third Additional Senior Civil Judge, Godhra which came to be decreed by the learned Judge and a copy of the judgment is on record of this case. 4. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. JR Nanavati with Mr. Y.M. Thakkar for the petitioner vehemently submitted that any order, passed upholding the recovery certificate and the action of the Mamlatdar will run counter to the findings recorded by the Civil Court after full-fledged trial. He, therefore, submitted that this petition is required to be allowed and the recovery certificate dated 23.06.1997 and the order of Mamlatdar dated 29.12.2000 are required to be quashed and set aside. 5. The Court is conscious of the fact that the matter involves highly disputed questions of fact and therefore, it is deemed fit that this petition be allowed only on the short ground that the Civil Court has already recorded the findings which are not altered by any higher forum. It is stated by Learned Advocate Mr. P.V. Hathi for Respondent No. 1 that a First Appeal was filed being Stamp No. 3953 of 2007, but that stood dismissed for default. The net effect is that the findings recorded by the Civil Court holds the field today. In view of that, recovery certificate dated 23.06.1997 and the order passed by the Mamlatdar dated 29.12.2000 are quashed. 6. At the request of Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, it is clarified that it will be open for Respondent No. 1, acting through Official Liquidator, if deemed fit and if so advised by the legal experts, to take appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for the claim of Respondent No. 1 Corporation. 7. It is also clarified at the request of Learned Advocate Mr. Hathi for Respondent No. 1 that quashing of recovery certificate and quashing of the order of Mamlatdar are not to be construed to mean that this Court has examined the merits of the claims of either party and therefore, it will be open for them to establish their rival claims before the competent forum which may be chosen by Respondent No. 1 for recovery of their amount. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. P P P P P