SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 245

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
5th May, 1961
J.L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
State of Vindhya Pradesh (Now the State of Madhya Pradesh), Appellant
Versus
Moula Bux and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (Mr. B. K. B. Naidu, Advocate for Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate), for Appellant; Mr. G. C. Mathur, Advocate, for Respondents.

Advocates:
B.K.B.Naidu, G.C.MATHUR, I.M.SHROFF, P.Sen Gupta

In a suit against a Part C State, the proper defendant is the State itself, and not the Union of India.

Headnote:

PART C STATE - SUIT AGAINST - PROPER DEFENDANT - STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH - GOVERNMENT OF PART C STATES ACT (49 OF 1951), S. 38(2) - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT (10 OF 1897), SS. 3(8), 3(58), 3(60) - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (5 OF 1908), S. 79.

Fact of the Case:

The respondents, bidi merchants, obtained a lease for plucking and appropriating tendu leaves from the Makundpur Range for three years from the Divisional Forest Officer, Rewa. The contract was canceled, and the right was put up for auction, but no bidders came. The Government demanded the yearly installments, claiming them under the contract as the difference between the original contract amount less the amount fetched by way of fresh auction, which was nil. The respondents filed a suit for a perpetual injunction against this claim and for damages on the averment that the State of Vindhya Pradesh was guilty of breach of the contract.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the State of Vindhya Pradesh was a separate State and not merged with the Central Government. The Lieutenant Governor of the State was the proper party to be sued, and the State was the proper authority to be named under S. 79 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit had to be brought against the State of Vindhya Pradesh, and not the Union of India.

Issues: Whether the suit against the State of Vindhya Pradesh was defective because the proper defendant was the Union of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Government of Part C States Act, the General Clauses Act, and the Code of Civil Procedure. It held that the definition of "State" in the General Clauses Act included Part C States. The definition of "State Government" in the same Act meant the Central Government in the case of Part C States. However, the definition of "Central Government" included the Lieutenant Governor acting within the scope of authority given to him under Art. 239 of the Constitution. The President had issued a notification appointing the Lieutenant Governor as the person authorized under Order 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the Lieutenant Governor was the proper authority to be sued in the case of a Part C State.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Judicial Commissioner was upheld.

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This is an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh, which stands substituted for the State of Vindhya Pradesh under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and is directed against an order of the Judicial Commissioner, Rewa, by which he modified, on review his judgment and decree in a civil suit filed by the respondents against the State of Vindhya pradesh. The appeal has been filed on a certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Rewa.

2. The only question urged in this appeal is that the suit brought against the State of Vindhya Pradesh was defective because the proper defendant was the Union of India. Since the question is one of law, it relieves us of the duty of narrating all the facts. Briefly stated, the suit was for damages valued at Rs. 1,00,000/- and for a permanent injunction against the State of Vindhya Pradesh. The suit was filed in the following circumstances: The respondents are bidi merchants, and for that purpose, had obtained on October 18, 1951 from the Divisional Forest Officer, Rewa, a lease for plucking and appropriating tendu leaves from the Makundpur Range for three years, commencing from October 18, 1951 on payment of Rs. 1,63,000/- per year (Ex. p. 85). For some reasons into which it is not necessary to go, this contract was cancelled, and the right was put up for auction, but no bidders came. The Government, therefore, demanded the yearly instalments, claiming them under the contract as the difference between the original contract amount less the amount fetched by way of fresh auction, which was nil. The suit was filed for a perpetual injunction against this claim and for damages on the averment that the State of Vindhya Pradesh was guilty of breach of the contract.

3. The trial Judge decreed both the parts of the claim, placing the damages at Rs. 36,570/-. Appeals were filed by both sides before the Judicial Commissioner; the appeal of the State Government was allowed and that of the plaintiffs dismissed, resulting in the dismissal of the entire suit. The Judicial Commissioner held that the State of Vindhya Pradesh was not a juristic entity and the suit ought to have been filed against the Union of India. On an Application for review the Judicial Commissioner held that there was an error apparent on the face of his earlier judgment, and that the State of Vindhya Pradesh could be legally sued. He accordingly granted review, and modified his judgment and decree by upholding the claim for perpetual injunction; but he dismissed the claim for damages on merits. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed with certificate.

4. Prior to the formation of the State of Vindhya Pradesh, a Union of 35 States in Baghelkhand and Bundelkhand had been formed by the Rulers in March, 1948. On December 26, 1949, this Union merged with India, and on January 22, 1950, the United State of Vindhya Pradesh became a Chief Commissioner s Province under the Government of India Act, 1935. On the commencement of the Constitution, the Chief Commissioner s Province of Vindhya Pradesh became a Part C State administered by the President. In September, 1951, an Act known as the Government of Part C States Act, 1951, was passed by Parliament, and under it, a Lieutenant-Governor was appointed for Vindhya Pradesh. In 1956, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, this Part C State became a part of the State of Madhya pradesh.

5. The suit was filed on May 11, 1953, after notices under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were served, inter alia, on the Secretary, Forests and Industries Department, Vindhya Pradesh and the Collector of Rewa. The defendants raised the plea for the first time in appeal before the Judicial Commissioner that the suit was filed against a wrong defendant. According to them, the proper defendant was the Union of India. The Judicial Commissioner, relying upon Art. 300 of the Constitution and the definition of "State" in Art. 264, which did not include Part C States, he

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top