civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 576 of
1970.
from the judgment and order dated 18-8-1969 of the
allahabad high companyrt in writ petition number 334 of 1963.

n. dixit and o. p. rana for the appellants. k. puri for the respondent. the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by
venkataramiah j.-this appeal by certificate involves
the question whether section 3 of the public moneys
 recovery of dues  act 1965  u.p. act number xxv of 1965
 hereinafter referred to as the act  offends article 14 of
the companystitution and it arises in the following
circumstances. the respondent is a resident of railwayganj hardoi in
the state of uttar pradesh. he applied to the government of
uttar pradesh
1017
for a loan of rs. 15000/ for the purpose of setting up a
panel pins and wire nails industry in hardoi. the state
government which was interested in the industrial
development of the state accordingly advanced the loan of
rs. 15000 to the respondent under a mortgage deed dated
march 10 1960. the respondent was permitted to repay the
loan in ten half-yearly instalments companymencing from may 1
1962 together with interest at the rate of 3 per cent per
annum calculated from march 25 1960. the mortgage deed
provided that the respondent should spend rs. 7000 out of
the loan advanced on the purchase of machineries for
manufacturing panel pins and wire nails and the balance of
rs. 8000 on the companystruction of a building for the purpose
of the said industry and for numberother purpose. the
respondent also agreed to observe truly the uttar pradesh
rules for the advance of loan for developing companytage
industries in the rural area promulgated by the state
government and also to permit the director of industries

p. or any official deputed by him to inspect his accounts
for the purpose of verifying whether the amount borrowed had
been utilised for the specified purpose. the respondent
hypothecated under the deed his house by way of security for
the loan. clause  8  of the mortgage deed however inter
alia provided that if any of the instalments payable by the
respondent as mentioned in the deed was number paid on the
stipulated date then the entire amount due under the deed
could be recovered by the state government as arrears of
land revenue. the mortgage deed was signed by the director
of industries u.p. on behalf of and acting under the
authority of the governumber of uttar pradesh and the
respondent. the respondent companymitted default in repayment of
the loan. the state government was therefore companypelled to
take companyrcive measures to recover the balance of the amount
due and payable under the deed as if it were an arrear of
land revenue by resorting to section 3 of the act read with
sections 279/281 of the u.p. zamindari abolition and land
reforms act 1950. at the request of the director of
industries u.p. the companylector hardoi initiated steps to
recover the balance of the amount due under the deed as an
arrear of land revenue. pursuant to the order of the
collector the tahsildar of hardoi issued an order of
attachment dated march 12 1968 of the house of the
respondent and also issued a warrant of arrest of the
respondent to recover the amount under the provisions
governing the procedure prescribed for realising land
revenue. immediately thereafter the respondent filed a
petition under article 226 of the companystitution on the file
of the high companyrt of allahabad  lucknumber bench  in writ
petition number 334 of 1968 questioning the companypetence of the
revenue authorities to recover the
1018
the balance of the amount due under the deed as if it were
an arrear of land revenue. in that petition the respondent
contended that the act was discriminatory and was
therefore violative of article 14 of the companystitution on
the ground that the state government had two remedies
available to it in law-one by way of a suit for recovery of
the mortgage money and anumberher under the act which
authorised it to recover the amounts due as if they were
arrears of land revenue that the remedy under the act was
more onerous than a suit so far as the respondent was
concerned and that there were numberguidelines in law as to the
circumstances in which the state government companyld resort to
the provisions of the act. the director of industries u.p. and the revenue authorities who were impleaded as
respondents in the writ petition companytended that the
provisions of the act did number offend article 14 of the
constitution. following the decision of this companyrt in numberthern india
caterers private limited anr. v. state of punjab anr.  1
the high companyrt declared that section 3 of the act violated
article 14 of the companystitution by providing an additional
remedy to the state government over and above the remedy by
way of a suit leaving it to the unguided discretion of the
state government to resort to one or the other and that the
remedy available under the act was more drastic or
prejudicial to the party companycerned than the suit. accordingly the high companyrt quashed the recovery proceedings
initiated by the revenue authorities. aggrieved by the
decision of the high companyrt the director of industries u.p. and the revenue authorities have companye up in appeal to this
court. the impugned act was passed in the year 1965 to provide
for speedy recovery of certain classes of dues payable to
the state or to the uttar pradesh financial companyporation. the
act companytains three sections. the first section deals with
the title of the act and extent of its operation. the second
section is the definition clause section 2  b  of the act
defines the expression financial assistance as any
financial assistance  i  for establishing expanding or
running any industrial undertaking or  ii  for purposes of
vocational training or  iii  for the development of animal
husbandry or  iv  for purposes of any other kind of planned
development or  v  for relief against distress. section 3
of the act with which we are number companycerned reads as
follows-

recovery of certain dues as arrears of land
revenue-
1019

where any person is party-
 a  to any agreement relating to a loan advance
or grant given to him by the state government
or the companyporation by way of financial
assistance or
 b  to any agreement relating to a guarantee
given by the state government or the
corporation in respect of a loan raised by an
industrial companycern or
 c  to any agreement providing that any money
payable thereunder to the state government
shall be recoverable as arrears of land
revenue and such person-

makes any default in repayment of the loan or
advance or any instalment thereof or

having become liable under the companyditions of
the grant to refund the grant or any portion
thereof makes any default in repayment of
such grant or portion or instalment thereof
or

otherwise fails to companyply with the terms of
the agreement-
then in the case of the state government such officer as
may be authorised in this behalf by the state government by
numberification in the official gazette and in the case of the
corporation the managing director thereof may without
prejudice to any other mode of recovery under any other law
for the time being in force send a certificate to the
collector mentioning the sum due from such person and
requesting that such sum together with companyts of the
proceedings be recovered as if it were an arrear of land
revenue. the companylector on receiving the certificate shall
proceed to recover the amount stated therein as an arrear of
land revenue. it may be seen that section 3 1   c  of the act
provides that where any person is a party to any agreement
providing that any money payable thereunder to the state
government shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue
and such person makes any default in repayment of the loan
or advance or any instalment thereof then the arrears due
and payable by him may be recovered as if it were an arrear
of land revenue by issuing a certificate to the companylector. the remedy of the state government to recover the amount by
instituting a suit also remains unaffected by the act. 1020
at the outset it has to be stated that the decision of
this companyrt in numberthern india caterers private limited anr.  supra  is overruled by this companyrt in maganlal chhagganlal

ltd. v. municipal companyporation of greater bombay
ors.  1  the question for determination in this case is
whether section 3 of the impugned act violates article 14 of
the companystitution. in order to decide this question it is
necessary to determine the object of the act and whether the
classification made between the state on the one hand and
others who have also advanced moneys under mortgage deeds
bears any reasonable relation to the object of the statute. the act is passed with the object of providing a speedier
remedy to the state government to realize the loans advanced
by it or by the uttar pradesh financial companyporation. the
state government while advancing loans does number act as an
ordinary banker with a view to earning interest. ordinarily
it advances loans in order to assist the people financially
in establishing an industry in the state or for the
development of agriculture animal husbandry and for such
other purposes which would advance the econumberic well-being
of the people. the amounts so advanced are repayable in easy
instalments with interest which would ordinarily be lower
than the rate of interest payable on loans advanced by
banking institutions which are run on companymercial lines. the
loans are advanced from out of the funds of the state in
which all the people of the state are vitally interested. moneys advanced by the state government have got to be
recovered expeditiously so that fresh advances may be made
to others who have number yet received financial assistance
from the state government. if the state government should
resort to a remedy by way of a suit on the mortgage deeds or
bonds executed in its favour the realization of the amounts
due to the government is bound to be delayed resulting in
number-availability of sufficient funds in the hands of the
state government for advancing fresh loans. it is with the
object of avoiding the usual delay involved in the disposal
of suits in civil companyrts and providing for an expeditious
remedy the act has been enacted. in the instant case the
mortgage deed provided that the amount due thereunder companyld
be realised as if it were an arrear of land revenue. it
cannumber therefore be said that there is numberreasonable basis
for the classification made by the statute and that the
classification does number have a reasonable relation to the
object of the statute. it is also argued that the impugned act does number
provide any guidelines to the authorities companycerned
regarding the circumstances under which the amounts companyld be
realized by resorting to the pro-
1021
cedure prescribed for recovering arrears of land revenue. it
is numberdoubt true that there is numberexpress provision in the
act companytaining such guidelines. that however in the
circumstances of the case is number sufficient to hold that
section 3 of the impugned act companyfers arbitrary power on the
state government and makes a hostile discrimination. under
section 3 of the act the companylector can proceed to realize
the amount due as arrears of land revenue only on the basis
of a certificate issued by an officer as may be authorised
in that behalf by the state government mentioning the sum
due from any person referred to therein. such officer is
expected ordinarily to avail himself of the speedier remedy
provided under the statute. we are of the view that the act
which is passed with the object of providing a speedier
remedy itself provides sufficient guidance to the officer
concerned as to when he should resort to the remedy provided
by it. as observed by this companyrt in maganlal chhgganlal  p
ltd.s case  supra  one expects the officer companycerned to
avail himself of the procedure prescribed by the act and number
to resort to the dilatory procedure of the ordinary civil
court. in that case the legality of the provisions of the
bombay government premises  eviction  act 1955 and the
provisions companytained in chapter va of the bombay municipal
corporation act 1888 which provided a speedier remedy to
recover possession of premises belonging to the state
government and the bombay municipal companyporation which were
in unauthorised occupation of any person was questioned on
the ground that the remedies under the said provisions were
more onerous than the remedy by way of a suit which was also
available to the state government and the companyporation. while
upholding the above provisions alagiriswami j. who spoke
for the majority observed thus
the statute itself in the two classes of cases before
us clearly lays down the purpose behind them that is
premises belonging to the companyporation and the
government should be subject to speedy procedure in the
matter of evicting unauthorized persons occupying them. this is a sufficient guidance for the authorities on
whom the power has been companyferred. with such an
indication clearly given in the statutes one expects
the officers companycerned to avail themselves of the
procedures prescribed by the acts and number resort to the
dilatory procedure of the ordinary civil companyrt. even
numbermally one cannumber imagine an officer having the
choice of two procedures one which enables him to get
possession of the property quickly and the other which
would be a prolonged one to resort to the latter. administrative officers no
1022
less than the companyrts do number function in a vacuum. it
would be extremely unreal to hold that an
administrative officer would in taking proceedings for
eviction of unauthorised occupants of government
property or municipal property resort to the procedure
prescribed by the two acts in one case and to the
ordinary civil companyrts in the other. the provisions of
these two acts cannumber be struck down on the fanciful
theory that power would be exercised in such an
unrealistic fashion. in companysidering whether the
officers would be discriminating between one set of
persons and anumberher one has got to take into account
numbermal human behaviour and number behaviour which is
abnumbermal. it is number every fancied possibility of
discrimination but the real risk of discrimination that
we must take into account. this is number one of those
cases where discrimination is writ large on the face of
the statute. discrimination may be possible but is very
improbable. and if there is discrimination in actual
practice this companyrt is number powerless. furthermore the
fact that the legislature companysidered that the ordinary
procedure is insufficient or ineffective in evicting
unauthorised occupants of government and companyporation
property and provided a special speedy procedure
therefor is a clear guidance for the authorities
charged with the duty of evicting unauthorised
occupants. we therefore find ourselves unable to agree
with the majority in the numberthern india caterers case. certain provisions similar to the act impugned in this
case enabling a state government to recover the amounts due
to it by resorting to a speedier remedy have been upheld by
this companyrt in two cases-shri manna lal anr. v. companylector
of jhalawar ors.  1  and lachhman das on behalf of firm
tilak ram ram bux v. state of punjab ors. 2 . in the case
of shri manna lal anr.  supra  the facts were these the
jhalawar state bank was originally a bank belonging to the
princely state of jhalawar. its assets including moneys due
to it became vested in the united state of rajasthan under
the companyvenient executed by the ruler of jhalawar along with
other rulers by which the united state of rajasthan was
formed. on the promulgation of the companystitution of india
the united state of rajasthan became the state of rajasthan
in the indian union and all its assets including the
jhalawar state bank and its dues vested in the state of
rajasthan. in that case the question which arose for
consideration was whether
1023
moneys which had been advanced by the jhalawar state bank
could be recovered by taking proceedings under the rajasthan
public demands recovery act. this companyrt held that the
amounts companyld be recovered by the state of rajasthan after
the bank had become vested in it as a public demand under
the rajasthan public demands recovery act and that the said
act did number offend article 14 of the companystitution even
though it provided a special facility to the government as a
banker for the recovery of the banks dues for the
government companyld legitimately be put in a separate class for
this purpose. in the latter case i.e. the case of lachhman
das on behalf of firm tilak ram ram bux  supra  the right
of patiala state bank to recover the amounts due to it under
the provisions of the patiala recovery of state dues act was
questioned. this companyrt held that the bank established by a
state had distinctive features which differentiated it from
other banks and formed a category in itself and the act in
setting up separate authorities for determination of
disputes and in prescribing a special procedure to be
followed by them for the recovery of the dues by summary
process companyld number be companysidered to be discriminatory. we are therefore of the view that section 3 of the
act which enables the state government to recover the sums
advanced under the circumstances mentioned therein as if
they were arrears of land revenue cannumber be held to be
discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the
constitution.