Broad public demand recovery provisions and adequate statutory remedies can bar writ petitions in revenue matters.

A broad statutory definition of "public demand" can validly extend to dues payable to the State Bank of India and nationalised banks, as recovery of such dues is treated as part of the procedural field and any incidental overlap with banking does not invalidate the provision under pith and substance. The challenge to Article 15 of Schedule I to the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, therefore failed on legislative competence. The existence of statutory appeal, revision and review under the Act, including the limitation framework and deposit conditions, ordinarily bars resort to writ jurisdiction in revenue matters unless exceptional circumstances are shown; no such circumstance was established, so the writ petitions were not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether article 15 of Schedule I to the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, so far as it applies to dues payable to the State Bank of India and nationalised banks, was beyond the competence of the State Legislature; (ii) Whether the existence of appeal, revision and review under the Act barred the writ petitions.

Issue (i): Whether article 15 of Schedule I to the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, so far as it applies to dues payable to the State Bank of India and nationalised banks, was beyond the competence of the State Legislature.

Analysis: The Act defined public demand by reference to Schedule I, and the legislature had deliberately given the expression a wide amplitude. Amounts due to the State Bank of India and nationalised banks could validly be treated as public demands for purposes of expeditious recovery. The provision did not amount to legislation on banking merely because the recoverable dues arose from banking transactions. Entry 43 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India was held to cover recovery of taxes and other public demands both within and outside the State. In any event, the impugned provision also sustained itself as ancillary to the procedural field and, applying the doctrine of pith and substance, any incidental overlap with banking did not invalidate it.

Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutionality of article 15 failed, and the provision was held to be within legislative competence.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of appeal, revision and review under the Act barred the writ petitions.

Analysis: Sections 60, 62 and 63 of the Act provided an effective statutory framework of appeal, revision and review, and section 65 attracted the Limitation Act to proceedings under the Act. A condition requiring deposit for appeal or revision did not make those remedies illusory. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not to be used to short-circuit ordinary statutory remedies, especially in revenue matters, absent exceptional circumstances. No such exceptional circumstance was established.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable in the face of the available statutory remedies and were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned provision was upheld as valid, and the petitioners were left to pursue the remedies provided under the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly defines public demand broadly by reference to its schedule, dues recoverable under that schedule may validly be brought within the recovery mechanism; and writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass an adequate statutory appellate and revisional scheme.

---