ORDER 1. The order dated 23.5.14 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No.3, rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking production of documents under Section 25 of the Rajasthan public Demand Recovery Act of 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1952'), has been challenged by the petitioner by means of present petition. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the State Government through the respondent No.2-The Director, Rajasthan State Insurance & General Provident Fund Department, Jaipur had extended a group medical insurance policy known as 'Saras Samuhik Beema Yojana Phase-III' (hereinafter referred to as 'the said policy'), covering the insurance of milk producers of Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation. The respondent No.2 therefore had entered into a coinsurance agreement (MOU) with the petitioner for the period from 15.7.08 to 14.7.09 (Annex.3). As per the provisions of the said MOU, in case of any claims and expenditure, the liability of the petitioner was fixed to the extent of 90%. It was also provided in the said MOU that the respondent No.2 would have the right to settle the claims arising under the policy. Accordingly, the liabilities as and when arose, were to be remitted by the petitioner in its proportionate share. It appears that the dispute arose between the parties as the petitioner company failed to remit its share to the respondent No.2 as per the terms of the MOU, though the respondents had made 100% payments towards the claims made by the insured persons. 3. The respondents therefore initiated the proceedings under the Act of 1952 for the recovery of the said amount by sending the requisite requisition to the District Collector i.e. the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 after having been satisfied that the demand was recoverable under the Act, issued the certificate as contemplated under Section 4, and also issued the notice under Section 6 of the said Act to the petitioner company. In response thereto, the petitioner filed a petition before the respondent No.3 under Section 8 of the said Act, denying the liability and contending interalia that the demand was not recoverable under the said Act. Thereafter, pending the said petition, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 25 of the said Act seeking direction against the respondent No.2 to produce three categories of documents, to which the respondent No.2 filed the reply. Thereafter, pending the said petition, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 25 of the said Act seeking direction against the respondent No.2 to produce three categories of documents, to which the respondent No.2 filed the reply. The respondent No.3 dismissed the said application of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 23.5.14 which has been challenged by the petitioner, by way of present petition. The petition has been resisted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing the reply. 4. The learned senior counsel Mr. R.N. Mathur for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the concerned respondent had made payments to the insured without properly scrutinising and verifying the claims made by the insured and therefore the petitioner had kept on asking for the details of the documents in respect of the said claims, which the respondent No.2 had failed to provide. According to him a Joint Audit Committee was appointed by the respondent No.2 to scrutinise and verify the payments, however the respondent No.2 had failed to provide the requisite documents to the petitioner during or after the audit conducted by the said Committee. According to him, from the correspondence ensued between the parties, it was clear that the petitioner had demanded the documents in question even prior to the issuance of the demand certificate by the respondent No.3, and therefore it was highly improper on the part of the respondent No.3 to observe, that the petitioner had filed the application under Section 25 of the said Act only to prolong the proceedings. According to him, the gross irregularities having been committed by the respondent No. 2 in passing the unreasonable and unjustified bills, the petitioner being co-insurer was entitled to verify all the documents pertaining to the said claims. Pressing into service the provisions contained in the said Act, Mr. Mathur submitted that though there is an alternative remedy provided under the said Act, the same is not efficacious, and that even otherwise existence of alternative remedy itself would not be a bar to filing the writ petition. In this regard, Mr. Mathur has relied upon the decision of this court in case of Rijhumal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 1958 Raj. 17. Mr. Mathur has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Shri M.L. Sethi Vs. In this regard, Mr. Mathur has relied upon the decision of this court in case of Rijhumal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. AIR 1958 Raj. 17. Mr. Mathur has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Shri M.L. Sethi Vs. Shri R.P. Kapur AiR 1972 SC 2379 to submit that the documents though may not be admissible in evidence, should be directed to be produced, if they are relevant to the matter in dispute in the proceedings. 5. The learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. Anurag Sharma, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, however raising preliminary objection against the maintainability of the petition vehemently submitted that the alternative remedy of filing revision before the Board of Revenue under Section 23-B of the said Act was available to the petitioner and therefore the present petition may not be entertained. Mr. Anurag Sharma taking the court to the terms of the MOU submitted that the respondent No.2 had the right to settle all the claims, and that no right of the petitioner to verify the claims settled by the respondent No.2 was reserved, however the respondent No.2 had not only appointed the Joint Audit Committee but also provided all the documents as demanded by the petitioner. According to him though the petitioner had all the documents containing in Category-I of his application, and the copies of certain documents were not possible to be given, the same being part of the record of various cases pending in the court, of which the respondent No.2 had given the details to the petitioner, and that was sufficient compliance of the demand made by the petitioner. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the application under Section 25 of the said Act was filed by the petitioner only to delay the proceedings, as rightly observed by the respondent No.3. 6. At the outset it is required to be stated that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.3 (Annex.1), whereby the application of the petitioner, seeking production of documents under Section 25 of the said Act, has been dismissed. As such the petitioner could have challenged the said order before the Board of Revenue, which has the power to revise any order made under the said Act by any officer subordinate to the Board, in view of Section 23-B of the said Act. As such the petitioner could have challenged the said order before the Board of Revenue, which has the power to revise any order made under the said Act by any officer subordinate to the Board, in view of Section 23-B of the said Act. Hence, an alternative remedy being available to the petitioner, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the present petition would not be maintainable. However, since the matter has been argued at length on merits, the court deems it proper to decide the petition on merits also. 7. At this juncture, it is also required to be noted that though the petitioner has filed the petition under Section 8 of the said Act before the respondent No.3 denying its liability to make payment under the Certificate issued by the respondent No.3 under Section 4 of the said Act on the ground that the said demand is not recoverable under the said Act, the learned senior counsel Mr. Mathur for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the said issue of jurisdiction of the respondent No.3 or the applicability of the provisions of the said Act has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition, and that this petition is confined only to the legality of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking production of documents under Section 25 of the said Act. 8. So far as the provisions contained in the said Act are concerned, the respondent No.3 Collector, on receipt of the requisition made by the concerned authority, is empowered to issue the certificate under Section 4 to the effect that the demand is recoverable under the said Act. Such certificate issued under Section 4 has to be served upon the defaulter in the manner prescribed in view of Section 6 of the said Act, and the defaulter may within 30 days from the service of notice under Section 6, present to the Collector a petition denying his liability in the whole or in part on the ground that the demand is not recoverable under the said Act or its recovery by suit is barred by any law for the time being in force, as per Section 8(1) of the said Act. It is pertinent to note that pending the determination of such petition presented under sub-section (1) of Section 8, all proceedings under the certificate are required to be stayed in view of sub-section (4) thereof. The relevant part of the said Section 8 is reproduced as under:- "8. Petition denying liability.-(1) The defaulter may, within thirty days from the service of the notice under section 6, or where the notice has not been duly served, within thirty days from the execution of any process for enforcing the certificate, present to the Collector issuing the notice a petition in the prescribed form signed and verified in the prescribed manner denying his liability in the whole or in part on the ground that the demands is not recoverable under this Act or that its recovery by suit is barred by any law for the time being inforce. (2) ...... (3) ...... (4) All proceedings under the certificate shall be stayed pending the determination of a petition presented under this section." 9. The other provisions relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are Sections 12 and 25 which are also reproduced hereinunder for the sake of convenience:- "12. When certificate may be executed.- No step in execution of a certificate shall be taken until the period of thirty days has elapsed since the date of the service of the notice under section 6, or, when a petition has been presented under section 8, until such petition has been heard and determined: Provided that, if the Collector is satisfied that the defaulter is likely to conceal, remove or dispose of the whole or any part of such of his movable property as would be liable to attachment for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue and that the realization of the amount of the certificate would in consequence be delayed or obstructed, he may at any time direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, an attachment of the whole or any part of such property." "25. Officers to have powers of Civil Court for certain purposes.- Every Collector, Assistant Collector or Tehsildar acting under this Act, shall have the powers of a Civil Court for the purposes of receiving evidence, administering oath, enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents." 10. Officers to have powers of Civil Court for certain purposes.- Every Collector, Assistant Collector or Tehsildar acting under this Act, shall have the powers of a Civil Court for the purposes of receiving evidence, administering oath, enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents." 10. From the bare reading of the aforestated provisions it clearly transpires that when the petition is presented by the defaulter under Section 8(1), all the proceedings under the certificate are required to be stayed pending the determination of the said petition as per Section 8(4) of the said Act. The only power left with the Collector in that case would be to exercise powers under Section 12 as held by this court in case of Rijumal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra). It has been held in para 15 as under :- "15. Then we turn to the contention that the Collector, was not right in realising the amount lying to the credit of the applicant in the Bank at Sujangarh, and that he did so without jurisdiction and against the clear provisions of the Act. Section, 8 (4) clearly provides that all proceedings under the certificate shall be stayed pending the determination of a petition presented under this section. The applicant had presented an application under Section 8, and as such the Collector, should have stayed further proceedings. The only power that the Collector has is under the proviso to Section 12 which lays down that the Collector may, for certain reasons, mentioned therein, direct at any time, for reasons to be recorded in writing, attachment of any property which is likely to be concealed, removed or disposed of by the defaulter. The Collector, however, did not proceed under this proviso, and his action in getting the Bank to pay him the amount lying in the Bank to the credit of the applicant was also without jurisdiction.“ 11. In view of the aforestated legal position, the application of the petitioner filed before the respondent No.3 Collector under Section 25 of the said Act seeking production of the document as such should not have been decided by him, till the determination of the petition under Section 8(1) of the said Act. In view of the aforestated legal position, the application of the petitioner filed before the respondent No.3 Collector under Section 25 of the said Act seeking production of the document as such should not have been decided by him, till the determination of the petition under Section 8(1) of the said Act. The petitioner also should not have pressed for such application under Section 25 till his petition under Section 8 was decided by the respondent No.3, otherwise it may amount to the petitioner's giving up of the plea raised in the application under Section 8(1) of the said Act. In any case, since now the same has been decided, let us examine the legality of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3. 12. It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent No.3 acting under the said Act has powers of a Civil Court for the purposes of receiving evidence, administering oath, enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents in view of Section 25 of the said Act. So far as the documents sought are concerned, it appears from the application filed by the petitioner annexed to the present petition as Annex.10, that the petitioner had sought three categories of documents, out of which first category pertained to the agreements i.e. the MOU signed by the respondents and the petitioner, the co-insurance agreement dated 4.8.08, the policy etc. The second category of documents sought were pertaining to the claims made by the insured under the policy, in order to assess whether the payments made by the respondents were bonafide and in accordance with the guidelines and conditions of the MOU or not. The third category of documents also pertained to the scrutinisation of claims made under the policy and the complete audit files of 2298 cases. The said application of the petitioner was replied by the respondents stating interalia that the said application was given to delay the proceedings in asmuch as some of the documents were already available and others were also made available to the petitioner, and the C.D. containing the details of claim cases was also given to the petitioner and its team. It was also stated that the application was submitted by the petitioner with the malafide intention of delaying the proceedings. 13. It was also stated that the application was submitted by the petitioner with the malafide intention of delaying the proceedings. 13. Now, from perusal of the documents on record, more particularly Annex.R/7 and R/8 annexed to the reply, it clearly transpires that entire relevant record pertaining to the claims and payments was made available to the audit team of the petitioner and the certified copies of the documents as requested were also forwarded to the petitioner. It also transpires from the application itself of the petitioner that the 2298 claim files were audited and scrutinised by the petitioner and its team. Further, in the order-sheets (Annex.R/11) more particularly of the dates 3.4.14, 21.4.14 and 6.5.14 also, there is a mention that the requisite documents and the C.D. containing the details of claims were provided by the respondent No.2 to the representative of the petitioner and that the MOU and other agreements were already available with the petitioner. The court therefore finds substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the petitioner with a view to prolong the payment of public demand had filed the said application under Section 25, and that the petitioner was not proceeding further with the proceedings, under Section 8(1), though most of the documents sought in the application were available with the petitioner, and the others were either provided or the details thereof were made available to the petitioner through C.D. 14. Evenif the provisions contained in Civil Procedure Code with regard to discovery and production of documents are made applicable to the facts of the present case, then also there was sufficient compliance of the said provisions. It is needless to say that it is the opinion of the court (in the instant case, the respondent No.3), which matters whether such discovery and production of documents is necessary for disposing of the proceedings in question. The respondent No.3 having observed in the impugned order that the requisite documents and details sought were already made available to the petitioner by the respondent No.2, and that the applications were being made by the petitioner one after the other only with a view to prolong the proceedings, this court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. 15. The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. By this order, the stay application also stands dismissed.