ORDER : S. Manikumar, J. 1. Distraint order (Form-I) issued under Section 8 of the Puducherry Revenue Recovery Act, 1970, for recovery of mineral revenue arrears vide letter No. 1922/RR-ACT/2010 dated 23.08.2013 for a sum of Rs. 6,48,563/- + 12% interest, is challenged in the present writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, her mother Smt. M. Selvi, was the Proprietor of M/s. Sree Rajarajeswari Granites. Lease was granted by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Old RIMS Premises, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, to Smt. M. Selvi, mother of the petitioner, on 07.08.1998, for a period of 15 years, which expired on 06.08.2013. The petitioner's father, was carrying on quarrying business, until his death on 18.12.1988. According to the petitioner, all amounts due and payable under the Mines and Minerals Act of Andhra Pradesh, have been paid. There are no arrears. The petitioner has also contended that the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Old RIMS Premises, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, has taken steps to determine the lease in the year 2002 vide proceedings No. 42835/R4-2/2002 for (1) not paying the advance dead rent for the year 2002-2003 (2) non payment of arrears of Rs. 7,669/- upto 31.3.2002 (3) non submission of quarterly returns in form-C. (4) non working of the quarry since October 2000. 3. As against the said order, petitioner's mother preferred a revision before the competent authority. Revision was allowed vide order dated 13.07.2007. The petitioner has further submitted that on 27.06.2013, her mother died. According to the petitioner both her parents, were not engaged in quarrying. 4. That on 27.01.2013, a copy of the Distraint order passed under Section 8 of the Puducherry Revenue Recovery Act, 1970, dated 20.12.2013, has been served. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Old RIMS Premises, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, has taken revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner's mother for non payment of Seigniorage Fee and interest up to 31.03.2012 for Rs. 6,48,563/-. 5. The 4th respondent has sent a letter No. 1922/RR-Act/2010 dated 23.08.2013, to the District Collector, Puducherry, Revenue Department, Puducherry, who in turn has directed the Revenue Officer, Office of the Deputy Collector (Revenue) North, Pondicherry and the Tahsildar, 100 Feet Road, Vannakulam, Mudaliarpet (No. 41, Revenue Village, Olgrate) Puducherry, the respondents 2 and 3, respectively to initiate revenue recovery proceedings and to recover the dues. The impugned distraint order issued under Section 8 of the Puducherry Revenue Recovery Act, 1970 for recovery of the above said amount, is assailed on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction and for violation of principles of natural justice. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner, the 4th respondent has failed to consider that the petitioner's mother has already filed a revision petition, which was allowed on 13.07.2007. It is also contended that Puducherry Revenue Recovery Act, 1970, cannot be made applicable for recovery of any alleged revenue pending in other States. Averments have also been made on the merits of the proceedings initiated by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Old RIMS Premises, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. 7. When the matter came up for admission, learned counsel for the petitioner, was indicated that unless and until, the order passed by the competent authority in Andhra Pradesh is challenged in the manner known to law, before the authorities under the Mining laws or before the Court, mere challenge to the recovery proceedings, which is only on execution, under Revenue Recovery Act, cannot be entertained, unless there is any illegality in the execution proceedings, 8. Considering the pleadings and material on record, Mr. A. Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) was put on notice. 9. On this day, Mr. Sivaprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has produced a letter No. 1922/RR-Act/2010 dated 23.08.2013, written by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Old RIMS Premises, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh to the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Pondicherry, which reads as follows: "Lr. No. 1922/RR-Act/2010 dated 23.08.2013 Sir, Sub: Mines And Minerals Quarry Lease for Black Granite over an extent of 1,000 Hect., in Sy. No. 765 of Matlivaripalli Village, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District Lease held by M/s. Sri. M. Selvi, Prop.:M/2. Raja Rajeswari Granites Recover of Mineral Revenue arrears under Revenue Recovery Act Requested Reg. Ref: 1. Progs. No. 28831/R4-2B/1997, dated 01.07.1998 of the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad. 2. Progs. No. 2588/Q/1998, dated 07.08.1998 of the Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, palamaner. 3. Demand Notice No. 2588/Q2/1998, dated 15.02.2008 issued by the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner. 4. Lr. No. 2588/Q2/1998, dated 06.06.2012 of the Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Palamaner. Progs. No. 28831/R4-2B/1997, dated 01.07.1998 of the Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad. 2. Progs. No. 2588/Q/1998, dated 07.08.1998 of the Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, palamaner. 3. Demand Notice No. 2588/Q2/1998, dated 15.02.2008 issued by the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner. 4. Lr. No. 2588/Q2/1998, dated 06.06.2012 of the Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Palamaner. ***** I wish to submit that through the reference 1st cited a Quarry lease for Black Granite was granted to Sri M. Selvi, Prop: M/s. Raja Rajeswari Granites for a period of 15 years over an extent of 1,000 Hect., in Sy. No. 765 of Matlivaripalli Village, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District. The lease was executed on 07.08.1998 and the same was determined on 05.03.2011. In the reference 3rd cited the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner was issued demand notice to Sri M. Selvi, Prop: M/s. Raja Rajeswari Granites to pay the Mineral Revenue arrears of Rs. 6,48,563/- which are outstanding against them for the period ending 31.03.2012. But the lessee has not paid the arrears so far. Further the Asst. Director of Mines & Geology, Palamaner vide reference 4th cited, requested the undersigned to issue necessary certificate under R.R. Act 1890, since the said amount has to be collected under Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 as an arrear of Land Revenue under section 25 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The address of the lessee is furnished below:- Smt. M. Selvi, Prop.: M/s. Raja Rajeswari Granites, New No. D-66, Old No. 34, Mangaliamman Koil Street, Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry 605 004. Contd. 2" 10. Reading of the above said letter, makes it clear that, as early as on 15.02.2008, a Demand Notice No. 2588/Q2/1998, dated 15.02.2008 has been issued by the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner. Thereafter, the lease which was executed on 17.08.1998, has been determined on 05.03.2011. The outstanding amount to be paid by the lease holder for the period ending 31.03.2013 was Rs. 6,48,563/-. Since the lessee had not paid the arrears, the Asst. Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner, has written a letter in Lr.No. 2588/Q2/1998, dated 06.06.2012, requesting for issuance of necessary certificate under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890), as an arrear of Land Revenue under Section 25 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 11. Director of Mines and Geology, Palamaner, has written a letter in Lr.No. 2588/Q2/1998, dated 06.06.2012, requesting for issuance of necessary certificate under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890), as an arrear of Land Revenue under Section 25 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 11. In the letter No. 1922/RR-Act/2010 dated 23.08.2013, the address of the lessee has been mentioned as. Smt. M. Selvi, Prop. : M/s.Raja Rajeswari Granites, New No. D-66, Old No. 34, Mangaliamman Koil Street, Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry 605 004. 12. Though, on this day, Mr.Sivaprasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the above said letter dated 23.08.2013, 2nd page of the said letter has not been produced. The memorandum issued by the District Collector, Puducherry, Government of Puducherry in No. 13877/C2/Rev/RR/OS/2013 dated 09.12.2013, reads as follows:- "No. 13877/C2/Rev/RR/OS/2013 Dated 09.12.2013, Memorandum Sub: DRDM Revenue Recovery Recovery of Rs. 6,48,563/- towards Mineral Revenue arrears dues from Sri.M.Selvi, Prop. M/s.Raja Rajeswari Granites, New No. D-66, Old No. 34, Mangaliamman Koil Street, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry Reg. Ref: Lr. No. 1922/RR-ACT/2010 dated 23.08.2013 of the Dy. Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa (Copy enclosed) ***** A copy of the reference/certificate received from the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Kadapa for recovery of Rs. 6,48,563/- towards Revenue arrears, from M.Selvi, Prop. M/s.Raja Rajeswari Granites, New No. D-66, Old No. 34, Mangaliammankoil Street, Mudaliarpet Puducherry 605004, is forwarded for necessary action at your end. The amount indicated in the certificate / reference shall be included in the D.C.B. Of the Taluk/ Sub-Taluk concerned and action be initiated to collect the said arrear amount. The progress of collection shall be reflected in the periodical returns in this regard and the progress of collection be reviewed from time to time. It shall be ensured that the entire amount of the demand is recovered within a reasonable period and at any rate not later than one month from the date of receipt of this reference. Necessary intimation of the details of the credit of recovery may also be arranged to be issued to the claimant/authority issuing the certificates under reference, under intimation to this office without fail. Prompt measure shall be pursued at every stage and it shall be ensured that no avoidable delay is allowed to hamper the progress of collection of the arrear. (Dr. S.B. Deepak Kumar, I.A.S.,) District Collector, Puducherry. Encl: As above. Prompt measure shall be pursued at every stage and it shall be ensured that no avoidable delay is allowed to hamper the progress of collection of the arrear. (Dr. S.B. Deepak Kumar, I.A.S.,) District Collector, Puducherry. Encl: As above. To The Deputy Collector (Revenue-North) Puducherry. Copy to: The Dy. Director of Mines & Geology, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh The above said memorandum has been addressed to the Deputy Collector (Revenue-North), Puducherry, with a copy marked to the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. 13. Office of the Deputy Collector (Revenue) North, has issued another memorandum in No. 10079/DCR(N)/Rev/A1/2013/Mineral dated 19.12.2013 and the said memorandum reads as follows: "No. 10079/DCR(N)/Rev/A1/2013/Mineral Dated 19.12.2013, Memorandum Sub: DCR-North Revenue Recovery of Mineral Revenue Arrears of Rs. 6,48,563/- is due from the defaulter Sri.M.Selvi, Prop. of M/s.Raja Rajeswari Granites, New No. D-66, Old No. 34, Mangaliamman Koil Street, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry Collection Report Called for - Reg. Ref: Lr. No. 13877/C2/Rev/RR/OS/2013 dated 09.12.2013 of the District Collector, DR&DM, Puducherry. ***** Attention of the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Puducherry is drawn to the reference cited on the subject mentioned above, and he is hereby directed to collect and remit the amount of Rs. 6,48,563/- + int @12% under Revenue Recovery Act immediately. The amount should be included in the monthly DCB report / R.R.Act Register and the collection report should reach the undersigned on or before 03.01.2014 without fail. The copy of the reference and its enclosures are annexed. (S. Sakthivel) Revenue Officer Encl: As above. To The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Puducherry." 14. On this day, Mr. Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that all the above said documents stated supra, were furnished by his client. The supporting affidavit to this writ petition has been affirmed by the petitioner on 31.01.2014. There are no averments with reference to any of the above said proceedings. Though, the petitioner at paragraph No. 5 of the affidavit has referred to the letter No. 1922/RR-Act/2010 dated 23.08.2013 sent by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Old RIMS Premises, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh to the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Pondicherry, she has not enclosed the same in this writ petition. Though, the petitioner at paragraph No. 5 of the affidavit has referred to the letter No. 1922/RR-Act/2010 dated 23.08.2013 sent by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Old RIMS Premises, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh to the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Pondicherry, she has not enclosed the same in this writ petition. Though, the petitioner, has produced the first page of the letter dated 23.08.2013, for reasons, best known to her, page No. 2 of the said order is not produced, presumably, to avoid the factum of issuance of recovery certificate by the competent authority. 15. From the above said letter dated 23.08.2013, addressed to the Commissioner, Land Revenue, Pondicherry and the memorandums of the District Collector, Puducherry dated 09.12.2013 and the Revenue officer, office of the Deputy Collector (Revenue) North, dated 19.12.2013, makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner's mother, lessee of Black Granite for a period of 15 years, for an extent of 1 hectare, in Survey No. 765 of Matlivaripalli Village, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor District, has failed to pay a sum of Rs. 6,48,563/-, to the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Necessary certificate under the Revenue Recovery Act, Central Act, has been issued, as the said amount has to be collected as an arrear of land revenue, under Section 25 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 16. Section 25 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, reads as follows: "Recovery of certain sums as arrears of land revenue. 25. (1) Any rent, royalty, tax, fee or other sum due to the Government under this Act or the rules made thereunder or under the terms and conditions of any [reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] may, on a certificate of such officer as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. (2) Any rent, royalty, tax, fee or other sum due to the Government either under this Act or any rule made thereunder or under the terms and conditions of any [reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease] may, on a certificate of such officer as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, be recovered in the same manner as if it were an arrear of land revenue and every such sum which becomes due to the Government after the commencement of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1972, together with the interest due thereon shall be a first charge on the assets of the holder of the 1[reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease], as the case may be. 17. Section 25 of the above said Act makes it clear that the amount due to the Government, can be recovered as if it is an arrear of land revenue, and that after the issuance of a certificate or recovery, a first charge is created on the assets of the holder of mining lease. Admittedly, the petitioner's mother was a lessee and therefore, for the amounts due and payable to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, when a recovery certificate is issued by the competent authority in Andhra Pradesh, execution can be effected under Section 25 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as if it is an arrear of land revenue. 18. Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890), has been enacted for recovery of amounts from the defaulter, from whom an arrear of land revenue or a sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue is due, and includes a person who is responsible as surety for the payment of any such arrear or sum. 19. 18. Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890), has been enacted for recovery of amounts from the defaulter, from whom an arrear of land revenue or a sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue is due, and includes a person who is responsible as surety for the payment of any such arrear or sum. 19. Section 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890), reads as follows: "Recovery of public demands by enforcement of process in other district than those in which they become payable.- (1) where an arrear of land revenue, or a sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue is payable to a Collector by a defaulter being or having property in a district other than that in which the arrear accrued or the sum is payable, the Collector may send to the Collector of that other district a certificate in the form as nearly as may be of the Schedule, stating -- (a) the name of the defaulter and such other particulars as may be necessary for his identification; and (b) the amount payable by him and the account on which it is due. (2) The certificate shall be signed by the Collector making it or by any officer to whom such Collector may, by order in writing, delegate this duty, and save as otherwise provided by this Act, shall be conclusive proof of the matters therein stated. (3) The Collector of the other district shall, on receiving the certificate, proceed to recover the amount stated therein as if it were an arrear of land revenue which had accrued in his own district." 20. Central Act 1 of 1890, applies to the country, as a whole and section 3 of the Act enables, recovery of public demands by enforcement of the process in Districts, than those in which they became payable. 21. Sections 5 and 10 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890), relevant for the purpose of this case, are also extracted hereunder. "5. 21. Sections 5 and 10 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890), relevant for the purpose of this case, are also extracted hereunder. "5. Recovery by Collectors of sums recoverable as arrears of revenue by other public officer or by local authorities -- Where any sum is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue by any public officer other than a Collector or by any local authority, the Collector of the district in which the office of that officer or authority is situated shall, on the request of the officer or authority is situated shall, on the request of the officer or authority, proceed to recover the sum as if it were an arrear of land revenue which had accrued in his own district, and may send a certificate of the amount to be recovered to the Collector of another district under the foregoing provisions of this Act, as if the sum were payable to himself. 10. Duty of Collectors to remit moneys collected in certain cases - Where a Collector receives a certificate under this Act from a Collector of another State or a Collector in Pakistan or Burma, he shall remit any sum recovered by him by virtue of that certificate to that Collector, after deducting his expenses in connection with the matter" 22. A combined reading of Sections 3, 5 and 10 of the Central Act 1 of 1890, makes it clear that the Collector of a District in one State is empowered to collect the amount due to the Collector of a district of another State as per the certificate issued by the latter. The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 being a Central Act, applies to the country as a whole, and the Collector of the District means, a Collector of District anywhere in the Country. A certificate issued by a Collector of a District in State 'A' is enforceable in another state 'B', as if it were an arrear of land revenue in his own State and send a certificate of the amount recovered to another Collector of another District in the same State or another State. He can recover the amount due and payable to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, as if it were an arrear of land revenue, which accrued in his own District. 23. He can recover the amount due and payable to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, as if it were an arrear of land revenue, which accrued in his own District. 23. Revenue Recovery Act, applies to the entire country and the definition of a "Collector" leaves no room or doubt that it is applicable throughout the territory of this country. Hence, the Collector of Pondicherry, who has received the certificate from the 4th respondent can proceed on the receipt of the necessary certificate issued by the competent authority under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890). 24. The Collector of Pondicherry is empowered to recover the amount from the petitioner, for realisation of the outstanding amount determined under Section 25 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The sum determined as outstanding arrears payable to the Mines and Minerals Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, can be realised as arrears of land revenue, as per Section 25 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Sections 3, 5 and 10 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890) 25. The Puducherry Revenue Recovery Act, 1970, (Act 14/1970), has been enacted on 20th June 1970 to provide for the recovery of arrears of revenue in the Union Territory of Puducherry. As per Section 2(a) of the said Act, 'Collector' means, the Secretary to Government, Revenue, Finance and Planning Department, Puducherry and includes the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Puducherry, for Puduchery region, and the Administrators, Karaikal, Mahe and Yanam in their respective regions [and any officer whom the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint to perform the functions of a Collector under this Act. 26. As per Section 2(c) of the Act, 'Government' means the Administrator of the Union territory appointed by the President under Article 239 of the constitution. Section 2(d) defines 'Revenue' as follows: '"revenue' in relation to land includes all dues payable to Government whether under the provisions of any law for the time being in force or under any agreement in respect of such land'" 27. Section 8 of the Puducherry Revenue Recovery Act, 1970, deals with procedure for seizure and sale of movable property. The said section is extracted hereunder. Section 8 of the Puducherry Revenue Recovery Act, 1970, deals with procedure for seizure and sale of movable property. The said section is extracted hereunder. "In the seizure and sale of movable property for arrears of revenue, the following procedure shall be followed, namely: (i)(a) The Collector or other officer empowered by him in this behalf, shall furnish to the person employed to distrain the property of a defaulter (hereinafter called the distrainer), a demand in writing, duly signed by him, specifying the name of the defaulter, the amount of the arrear for which the distress is to be issued and the date on which the arrear fell due. (b) The distrainer shall produce such demand to the defaulter and if the arrear together with the batta due to him under section 53 is not paid at once,t he demand itself shall be his authority for making the distress. (ii) On the day on which the property is distrained, the distrainer shall deliver a copy of the demand to the defaulter, endorsing thereon a list or inventory of the property distrained and the name of the place where it may be lodged or kept. (iii) The demand shall also state that the distrained property will be immediately brought to public sale, unless the amount, with interest, batta, and all the expenses of the distress, are previously charged. (iv) When a defaulter is absent, a copy of the demand along with the endorsement, shall be fixed or left at his usual place of residence, or on the premises where the property may have been distrained, before the expiration of the third day, calculating from the day of the distress. 28. Schedule to the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, is the Form of Certificate issued by the Collector. The certificate issued under sub section 1 of section 3 of the Central Act, 1/1890, is extracted hereunder. "The Schedule Certificate [See Section 3, sub-section (1)] From The Collector of ___________ The Collector of _______________ Dated the _____ of ______ The Sum of Rs. ____ is payable on account of ______________________ by _________ son of _________________ resident ________ of who is believed (to be at ______________________) to have property consisting of ____________ at ________________ in your district. "The Schedule Certificate [See Section 3, sub-section (1)] From The Collector of ___________ The Collector of _______________ Dated the _____ of ______ The Sum of Rs. ____ is payable on account of ______________________ by _________ son of _________________ resident ________ of who is believed (to be at ______________________) to have property consisting of ____________ at ________________ in your district. Subject to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, the said sum is recoverable by you as if it were an arrear of land revenue which had accrued in your own district, and you are hereby directed so to recover it and to remit it to my office at A.B. Collector_______________" 29. As observed earlier the 2nd page of the letter dated 23.08.2013, has not been placed before this Court. The impugned proceedings is reproduced hereunder. 30. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to assail the correctness of the recovery proceedings, dated 23.08.2013, initiated at the instance of the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Old RIMS Premises, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, on the grounds inter-alia that there was no mining activity, and that the petitioner's mother had also, obtained an order dated 13.07.2007 passed by the Secretary to the Government, Industries and Commerce (M.II) Department, dated 13.03.2007, Government of Andhra Pradesh, in a revision petition filed by her any submission on the correctness of the orders passed adverse to the interest of the petitioner's mother by the mining authorities in Andhra Pradesh, cannot be challenged in this Court. The quarry site, is in Andhra Pradesh. Lease has been granted by the Assistant Director, Mines & Geology, Chittoor (A.P.). Orders have been passed determining the outstanding amount to be paid by the petitioner's mother by the authorities of Andhra Pradesh. 31. What is impugned in this writ petition is only the recovery proceedings initiated by the District Collector of Puducherry, pursuant to the certificate issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890), for collection of the outstanding amount, payable by the lease holder as an arrear of land revenue under Section 25of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Sections 3, 5 and 10 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890). No cause of action has occurred within the union territory of Pondicherry in the matter of grant of lease, determining of the outstanding amount, mineral revenue arrears determined at Rs. 6,48,563/- for the period ending 31.03.2012. 32. The impugned proceedings, is only a recovery proceedings initiated in exercise of the powers conferred on the District Collector of Puducherry under the Central Acts, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act 1957 and Revenue Act 1 of 1890. As stated supra, the District Collector (Pudhucerry) District is empowered to recover the above said amount, as an arrear of land revenue. There is no jurisdictional error, in the action of the District Collector, Puducherry. As charge over the property has been created, under Section 25 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957, for realisation of the above said amount, distraint order can always be issued by the District Collector, Pondicherry. Recovery proceedings, initiated by the District Collector, Pondicherry on request made by the authorities in State of Andhra Pradesh is only in the nature of execution. Unless and until the initial order determining the revenue arrears issued by the competent authorities in the State of Andhra Pradesh, is challenged in the manner known to law, execution proceedings alone cannot be assailed in the court within whose jurisdiction, recovery is sought to be made, unless there is any illegality in the recovery proceedings. Upon considering the material on record, this Court does not find any illegality in the recovery proceedings. The challenge to the jurisdiction of the District Collector, in initiating proceedings under the Puducherry Recovery Act, 1970, is not tenable. 33. In the light of the above discussion and decisions, this Court is of the view of there is no merit in the writ petition. That apart, though the petitioner is aware of the proceedings, extracted supra, none of the same, has been referred to in the supporting affidavit filed to this writ petition or enclosed in the typed set of papers. Non disclosure of the facts and the proceedings extracted supra, in the opinion of this Court amounts to suppression of facts. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is on equitable grounds and in exercise of discretion. It cannot be expected to be exercised to those, who suppress material facts to the Court. She is not entitled to seek for any equitable remedy. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is on equitable grounds and in exercise of discretion. It cannot be expected to be exercised to those, who suppress material facts to the Court. She is not entitled to seek for any equitable remedy. Reference can be made to the following decisions. (i) In Arunima Baruah v. Union of India reported in, 2007 (6) SCC 120 : LNIND 2007 SC 556, the Supreme Court held as follows: "12. .......It is also trite that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. But even if the said dirt is removed and the hands become clean, whether the relief would still be denied is the question. 13. In Moody v. Cox, (1917) 2 Ch. 71: (1916-17) All ER Rep 548 (CA), it was held: (All ER pp. 555 I-556 D). "When one asks on what principle this is supposed to be based, one receives in answer the maxim that anyone coming to equity must come with clean hands. I think the expression 'clean hands' is used more often in the textbooks than it is in the judgments, though it is occasionally used in the judgments, but I was very much surprised to hear that when a contract, obtained by the giving of a bribe, had been affirmed by the person who had a primary right to affirm it, not being an illegal contract, the courts of equity could be so scrupulous that they would refuse any relief not connected at all with the bribe. I was glad to find that it was not the case, because I think it is quite clear that the passage in Dering v. Earl of Winchelsea, (1787) 1 Cox Eq Cas 318: 2 Bos & P 270, which has been referred to, shows that equity will not apply the principle about clean hands unless the depravity, the dirt in question on the hand, has an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for." 14. In Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, pp. 874-76, the law is stated in the following terms: '1303. He who seeks equity must do equity. In granting relief peculiar to its own jurisdiction a court of equity acts upon the rule that he who seeks equity must do equity. In Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, pp. 874-76, the law is stated in the following terms: '1303. He who seeks equity must do equity. In granting relief peculiar to its own jurisdiction a court of equity acts upon the rule that he who seeks equity must do equity. By this it is not meant that the court can impose arbitrary conditions upon a plaintiff simply because he stands in that position on the record. The rule means that a man who comes to seek the aid of a court of equity to enforce a claim must be prepared to submit in such proceedings to any directions which the known principles of a court of equity may make it proper to give; he must do justice as to the matters in respect of which the assistance of equity is asked. In a court of law it is otherwise: when the plaintiff is found to be entitled to judgment, the law must take its course; no terms can be imposed. ** * 1305. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands. A court of equity refuses relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subject-matter of the litigation has been improper. This was formerly expressed by the maxim he who has committed iniquity shall not have equity, and relief was refused where a transaction was based on the plaintiffs fraud or misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought to enforce a security improperly obtained, or where he claimed a remedy for a breach of trust which he had himself procured and whereby he had obtained money. Later it was said that the plaintiff in equity must come with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. In application of the principle a person will not be allowed to assert his title to property which he has dealt with so as to defeat his creditors or evade tax, for he may not maintain an action by setting up his own fraudulent design. The maxim does not, however, mean that equity strikes at depravity in a general way; the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought, and the conduct complained of must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for; it must be depravity in a legal as well as in a moral sense. The maxim does not, however, mean that equity strikes at depravity in a general way; the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought, and the conduct complained of must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for; it must be depravity in a legal as well as in a moral sense. Thus, fraud on the part of a minor deprives him of his right to equitable relief notwithstanding his disability. Where the transaction is itself unlawful it is not necessary to have recourse to this principle. In equity, just as at law, no suit lies in general in respect of an illegal transaction, but this is on the ground of its illegality, not by reason of the plaintiffs demerits." (ii) In Udayami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of U.P., reported in 2008 (1) SCC 560 : LNIND 2007 SC 1415 : (2008) 1 MLJ 1002 at Paragraph 16, held as follows: "15. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M/s. Madhya Death Khair Industries and Another, 1980 (3) SC 311, this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt." 34. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.