J.K. Mohanty, J.
1. This case was heard along with O. J. C. Nos. 289 and 290 of 1978 as common questions of law were raised in these cases.
2. The Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur-III Circle (opposite party No. 5), issued a requisition under Section 4 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') to opposite party No. 2, the Special Certificate Officer, Sambalpur, for recovery of dues under the Orissa Taxation (On Goods carried by Roads or Inland Waterways) Act along with interest and costs to the tune of Rs. 49,316.73 by a certificate under the provisions of Section 5 of the said Act. On receipt of notice under Section 6 of the Act the petitioner filed objection under Section 8 of the Act, but the same was rejected by opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal and revision before the Additional District Magistrate, Sambalpur (opposite party No. 3), and the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Sambalpur (opposite party No. 4), respectively, but those were dismissed. Thereafter opposite party No. 2 issued a sale proclamation (in respect of this case and 15 other cases of forest dues, Central sales tax dues, Orissa sales tax dues and agricultural income-tax dues clubbed together) for realisation of a consolidated amount of Rs. 4,09,718.52 with costs and other incidental expenses. The petitioner filed a consolidated objection against the aforesaid sale proclamation and took various objections regarding maintainability of the aforesaid certificate cases and against clubbing up together all the demands. Opposite party No. 2 by his order dated 24th October, 1975, rejected the objection of the petitioner, vide annexure 3. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred certificate appeal No. 62 of 1976 before opposite party No. 3 and the same was rejected by order dated 10th November, 1975, vide annexure 4. Against this, the petitioner preferred certificate revision No. 18 of 1975 before opposite party No. 4 who dismissed the same by order dated 19th July, 1976, vide annexure 5. Then opposite party No. 2 issued a sale proclamation for realisation of the aforesaid amount in respect of the cases clubbed together. Opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3, 4 and 6 have filed their counter.
3. The main contention of the petitioner in this case is that opposite party No. 2, the Special Certificate Officer, committed serious error of law and procedure in clubbing up together all the 16 cases (including this case) relating to forest dues, Central sales tax dues, Orissa sales tax dues, agricultural income-tax dues and Orissa taxation (on goods carried by road and inland waterways) dues and in issuing a sale proclamation for realisation of a consolidated amount of Rs. 4,09,718.52. In 0. J. C. Nos. 289 and 290 of 1978 we have already held that the clubbing up of all the demands together is absolutely illegal and is not sanctioned by the provisions of law and the consolidation of all the demands has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. So we are of the view that the writ petition should be allowed, annexures 3, 4 and 5 and the sale proclamation issued in respect of the consolidated amount of Rs. 4,09,718.62 are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed.
4. In the result, therefore, the writ petition is allowed. However it may be made clear that it is open to the authorities to proceed further for realisation of the dues in respect of this case according to law.
There is no order as to costs.
K.P. Mohapatra, J.
5. I agree.