A state government is liable for the tortious acts of its servants if it has a statutory duty to take reasonable care of property seized by its customs authorities.

Judgment

SHELAT, J. : In 1947 and prior thereto the respondent carried on business as an exporter of fish in the State of Junagadh in the name and style of Ayub Iqbal and Company. In 1947 the Customs authorities of the State of Junagadh seized two motor trucks, a station wagon and other goods belonging to the respondent on the grounds (a) that the respondent had not paid import duties on the said trucks, (b) that they were used for smuggling goods in the State, and (c) that some of the goods w ere smuggled goods. The action was taken under the Junagadh State Sea Customs Act, II of S. Y. 1998 then in vogue in the State. The respondent filed an appeal against this order to the Home Member of the State as provided in the said Act. Pending the appeal, the State of Junagadh merged in the United States of Saurashtra which ultimately was converted into the State of Saurashtra. The State of Saurashtra thereafter merged with the former State of Bombay and on bifurcation of the Bombay State became part of the State of Gujarat. In the meantime the appeal was transferred to the Revenue Tribunal which was constituted by the State of Saurashtra and which was the competent forum to hear such appeals. On February 6, 1952, the Revenue Tribunal set aside the said order of confiscation of the Customs authority and directed the return of the said vehicles to the respondent. On March 13, 1952, the respondent applied for the return of the said vehicles but was informed that they had been disposed of under an order of a Magistrate passed under S. 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the sale proceeds viz., Rs. 2213/8 - were handed to a creditor of the respondent under an attachment order passed in his favour. On February 5, 1954, the respondent filed the present suit for the return of the said vehicles or in the alternative for their value viz. Rs 31786/8/- on the ground that pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, which in the absence of any proceedings against it had become final, the State Government was bound to hand over the said vehicles. In its written statement the State Government denied the respondent s claim and took up diverse pleas. It is not necessary to go into the details of these pleas except to say that the State Government did not raise any contention therein that it was not liable for any tortious act committed in respect of the said goods and vehicles by any one of its servants. On these pleadings the trial Court raised various issues. No issue with regard to the absence of liability for the tortious act of any servant of the Government was or could be raised in the aforesaid state of pleadings. The evidence led by the State and in particular of the police officer Trambaklal Naranji showed (a) that the said vehicles were seized in 1947 by the Customs Officer of the State of Junagadh, (b) that somehow they were kept in an open space opposite to the police station at Veraval, (c) that they remained totally uncared for from 1947 to October, 1951 with the result that the greater part of the machinery of the vehicles, tyres and even some wheels were pilfered-away leaving only the skeletons of the vehicles, (d) that no entries were made in any of the registers maintained at the police station to show as to how these vehicles came to be kept in the said open space or whether the customs authority had handed over the said vehicles to the police for safe custody, (e) that in October, 1951, witness Trambaklal who was then in-charge of the police station reported to his superior officers the fact of these vehicles lying in the said open space as uncared and unclaimed vehicles, (f) that on October 3, 1951, directions were given to him to apply to the Magistrate for disposal of the said vehicles as unclaimed property under S. 523, (g) that on October 21, 1951, the police recorded a Panchanama as regards the condition of the said vehicles, and (h) that on October 29, 1951 pursuant to the said directions, the police officer made a