JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. Both the writ applications relate to the same issue and, accordingly, learned counsel appearing for both parties in both the writ applications were heard and the writ applications are disposed of in this common judgment. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22004 of 2011 is the District Manager of Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., and opposite party no.3 therein is the Proprietor of M/s. Maa Rice Mill located in the district of Subarnapur. The petitioner, Banisdhar Tripathy, in W.P.(C ) No.7743 of 2012 is father of the borrower and a prayer has been made for release of the property belonging to him. 2. The facts leading to filing of the writ applications are that M/s. Maa Rice Mill was appointed as a custom miller by the Orissa State Civil Supplies Corporation and, accordingly, an agreement was executed between the said M/s. Maa Rice Mill and the Corporation on 3.6.2010 for kharif marketing season 2009-10. Under the agreement, the Rice Mill was to receive paddy stocks procured from the farmers by the Corporation and supply the resultant FAQ standard rice to the Corporation within a stipulated time for distribution to the beneficiaries under the Public Distribution System. The said Rice Mill received 29289 quintals of paddy with due acknowledgement and as per the terms of the agreement, it was to supply 19916.85 quintals of resultant rice to the Corporation. As against the said contract, the Rice Mill had supplied only 15875.33.200 quintals and misappropriated 3748.83.400 quintals of rice. The Corporation therefore issued a demand notice through the Collector, Subarnpur on 17.2.2011 requesting the Mill owner to deposit the cost of balance rice. The owner of the Rice Mill, who is opposite party no.3 in W.P.(C) No.22004 of 2011, having not paid the price of the misappropriated rice, a requisition under Section 4 of the Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act 1962 was filed in the Court of Certificate Officer for realization of a sum of Rs.62,91,444.34 from the said opposite party no.3. Along with the said requisition, property statement of the owner was also furnished for the purpose of attachment and recovery of the dues of the Corporation. 3. Along with the said requisition, property statement of the owner was also furnished for the purpose of attachment and recovery of the dues of the Corporation. 3. Opposite party no.3, who is owner of the Rice Mill, had availed financial assistance from opposite party no.1-Bank, namely, United Bank of India by mortgaging the properties, which were sought to be attached under the recovery proceeding initiated under the Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1962. The dues of the Bank having not been paid, the Bank took recourse to the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and a notice was issued under Section 13(4) of the said Act on 15.7.2011 for sale of the mortgaged properties. When the Corporation came to know about the said notice, intimation was given to the Bank indicating therein that the Corporation was to get an amount of Rs.62,91,444.34 from the said Rice Mill owner. However, intimation was ignored by the Bank. 4. Case of the Corporation is that any action taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not create first charge in favour of the Bank and, therefore, dues of the State shall have precedence over the dues of the Bank and other financial institution. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the provisions contained in OPDR Act, 1962 for realization of State dues is not inconsistent with the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and in absence of any provision in the SARFAESI Act creating first charge in favour of the Bank, in lieu of its dues, the said legislation cannot be given overriding effect qua the provisions contained in the State law or the right of the State to recover its dues. In support of his submission, Shri Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation referred to Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the properties, which are sought to be attached in the proceeding initiated under OPDR Act, are the properties which had been mortgaged by the owner of the Mill (opposite party no.3) with the Bank for the purpose of obtaining the loan. The properties had never been mortgaged with the Corporation for recovery of any dues and, accordingly, the Corporation has no right over the properties mortgaged with the Bank and the Corporation has to find out some other method for recovery of its dues. 6. The properties had never been mortgaged with the Corporation for recovery of any dues and, accordingly, the Corporation has no right over the properties mortgaged with the Bank and the Corporation has to find out some other method for recovery of its dues. 6. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Corporation can seek for attachment of the properties mentioned in the certificate when such property has been mortgaged with the Bank for the purpose of obtaining a loan. Therefore, Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation referring to Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 submitted that the provisions of the said Act shall have effect, not withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Since the SARFAESI Act does not create any first charge, there is no inconsistency between the State Legislation and the OPDR Act under which the Corporation seeks to recover its dues. Moreover, Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, action under both the Acts can be taken simultaneously and dues of the State being dues of the Crown it shall have precedence over the dues of the Bank. 7. Learned counsel for the Bank in reply submitted that principle of Crown debt or principle of priority does not apply to the present case and, there is no provision under which the Corporation can claim that it shall have precedence over the dues of the Bank. On the other hand, in absence of any such provision, the Bank being a secured creditor, its claim shall prevail over the Crown debt. It was further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that the Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. has been registered under the Companies Act and, therefore, cannot be treated as a Department of Government and, accordingly, cannot claim that its dues is a Crown debt. Learned counsel for the Bank, therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ application as the Corporation has no right to seek for attachment of the properties mortgaged with the Bank for the purpose of obtaining the loan. 8. Learned counsel for the Bank, therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ application as the Corporation has no right to seek for attachment of the properties mortgaged with the Bank for the purpose of obtaining the loan. 8. Undisputedly, the Corporation is registered under the Companies Act and is a separate legal entity. The principle of priority of Government debts/propriety of State debts is founded on the rule of necessity and of public policy. The State is entitled to raise money by taxation because unless adequate revenue is received by the State, it would not be able to function as a sovereign Government at all and it is essential that as a sovereign, the State should be able to discharge its primary function and in order to be able to discharge such functions efficiently, it must be in possession of necessary funds and this consideration emphasizes the necessity and the wisdom of conceding to the State, the right to claim priority in respect of its tax dues. In this connection, reference may be to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dena Bank Vrs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Co. and others reported in (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 694. Dues of the Corporation is not a tax due and, therefore the principle of Crown debt or principle of priority shall have no application in the facts of the present case. On the other hand, admittedly, the properties, which are sought to be attached in the proceeding initiated under the OPDR Act, have been mortgaged by the proprietor of the Rice Mill with the Bank for obtaining a loan. The Madras High Court in the case of UTI Bank Ltd. Vrs. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai and another reported in AIR 2007 Madras 118 went to the extent of holding that the claim of secured creditor will prevail over the Crown’s debts. There is no provision under the OPDR Act creating first charge over the properties sought to be attached in the proceeding. Even if we accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that SARFAESI Act does not create any charge, the difference is that the properties sought to be attached by the Corporation, are mortgaged with the Bank for obtaining the loan. Even if we accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that SARFAESI Act does not create any charge, the difference is that the properties sought to be attached by the Corporation, are mortgaged with the Bank for obtaining the loan. The said properties having been mortgaged with the Bank, the Bank has right to sell the properties and recover its dues. The Corporation has no right over the said properties and, accordingly, its dues have to be recovered by way of attachment of the properties which are not mortgaged or otherwise. 9. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the prayer of the Corporation and, accordingly, dismiss W.P.(C) No.22004 of 2011. 10. So far as W.P.(C) No.7743 of 2012 is concerned, the petitioner therein is the father of the borrower and he was the guarantor. In addition to the collateral security offered by the borrower, the ancestral residential building of the petitioner was also offered as collateral security for sanction of loan amount. When steps were taken by the Bank for realization of its dues taking recourse to SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.21131 of 2011 and the said writ application was disposed of on 25.8.2011. In the said writ application, it was contended by the petitioner that he arranged a buyer for purchasing Plot Nos.99, 100, 153 and 184 under Khata No.58 extending to an area of Ac.2.220 decimals in Mouza-Kumunde in the district of Sonepur advertised for sale by the Bank for consideration of Rs.1.01 crores. The prospective buyer appeared in the Court through counsel and learned counsel for the prospective buyer undertook to deposit the entire dues of the Bank to the tune of Rs.1,16,82,378.50 (as on 25.7.2011) by end of October, 2011. The Court therefore directed that in the event the prospective buyer deposits the entire money, the property mentioned above shall be sold in favour of the prospective buyer. The other properties mentioned in the advertisement shall be released in favour of the present petitioner. From the claim made in the present writ application, it appears that the prospective buyer did not deposit the amount as undertaken, as a result of which, the Bank issued advertisement for sale of all the properties. The other properties mentioned in the advertisement shall be released in favour of the present petitioner. From the claim made in the present writ application, it appears that the prospective buyer did not deposit the amount as undertaken, as a result of which, the Bank issued advertisement for sale of all the properties. Though we find no justification to interfere with the action taken by the Bank for recovery of its dues, being conscious of the fact that the residential house of the petitioner had been mortgaged, we direct the Bank to put all the mortgaged properties in public auction, if not already done, and if the outstanding dues can be recovered by sale of the properties taken as collateral security offered by the borrower, the residential house of the petitioner shall be spared. In the event, it is not possible to recover the entire outstanding dues by sale of the properties mortgaged by the borrower, the Bank may also proceed with sale of the properties of the guarantor (petitioner) for recovery of its dues. 11. With the above observation, this writ application is also disposed of.