Public demand recovery under state procurement schemes depends on the transaction's true nature, not an express recovery clause.

A claim for non-delivery of custom milled rice under a State procurement scheme was treated as a public demand recoverable under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, because the real nature of the transaction and the jurisdictional facts brought it within the statutory definition. The Court read the inclusive definition of "public demand" with Schedule I, including the provisions extending recovery to specified dues payable to the State or its instrumentalities. The Civil Supplies Corporation's role as the nodal agency for procurement supported maintainability of certificate proceedings. The absence of an express contractual clause authorising recovery under the Act was not decisive once the statutory basis for recovery was otherwise satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim arising from non-delivery of custom milled rice by the rice millers constituted a public demand recoverable under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, and whether the certificate proceedings initiated through the Civil Supplies Corporation were maintainable.

Analysis: The expression "public demand" under section 3(6) of the Act is an inclusive definition tied to Schedule I. Clause 8-A extends the scheme to outstanding loans and advances payable to the State Government, its departments, or officials by anybody whatsoever, while clause 15 further enlarges the class of recoverable dues in specified cases. The relevant inquiry is whether the jurisdictional facts exist for invoking the summary recovery machinery. On the admitted contractual arrangement, paddy was supplied under the State procurement policy through the Civil Supplies Corporation as the nodal agency, and the alleged liability arose from the millers' failure to deliver the agreed quantity of custom milled rice. The Court accepted the character of the transaction, the role of the Corporation as an instrumentality acting for the State in the procurement scheme, and the public nature of the procurement and distribution mechanism. The absence of an express contractual clause authorising recovery under the Act was held not to be decisive where the statutory definition was otherwise attracted.

Conclusion: The claim was held to be a public demand and the certificate proceedings were maintainable; the challenge by the rice millers failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For invoking the Public Demands Recovery Act, the decisive test is whether the demand falls within the statutory definition of public demand on the basis of the real nature of the transaction and the existence of jurisdictional facts, and not whether the underlying agreement expressly authorises recovery under the Act.

---