Judgment

MITTER, J. : This group of applications can be divided into two parts. The object of one group is to get the plaints in nine suits filed in this Court rejected while that of the other group is to stay the hearing of the suits. The suits are all of the same pattern in each of which the State of Bihar figures as the plaintiff. The Union of India is the first defendant in all of them while the second defendant in six is Hindustan Steel Ltd., and in three others the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. The cause of action in all the suits is of the same nature. Briefly stated the plaintiff s case in all the suits is that "due to the negligence or deliberate action of the servants of both defendants there was a short delivery or iron and steel material ordered by the plaintiff to various sites in the State of Bihar in connection with the construction work of the Gandak Project". As the goods were in all cases booked by rail for despatch to the project site both defendants are sought to be made liable for short delivery, the first defendant as the owner of the railway and the second defendant as the consignor of the goods under contract with the State of Bihar for supply of the material. In each case there is a prayer for a decree for a specific sum of money to be passed either against the first defendant "or alternatively against the second defendant". Normally all suits of this kind are instituted all over India in different courts beginning from the courts of the lowest jurisdiction to the High Courts exercising original jurisdiction. The only distinguishing feature of this series of suits from others of every day occurrence in different courts is that a State is the plaintiff in each case. In all suits or a similar nature which are filed in courts other than this court, a notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an essential pre-requisite. No such notice has been served in any of these cases. The application were set down for trial of three issues sought to be raised by way of preliminary issues. They are as follows :

1. Whether the alleged cause or causes of action in this suit are within the scope of Art. 131 of the Constitution?

2. Whether this suit is within the scope of Art. 131 of the Constitution in view of a non-State, viz., defendant No. 2, Having been made a party to the suit?

3. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of S. 80 C. P. C. for want of notice to defendant No. 1?

2. The question before this Court is, whether the dispute in these cases is within the purview of that article (quoted in the foot-note)*. It must be noted that the article confers jurisdiction on this Court to the exclusion of all other courts in any dispute between the parties mentioned therein. There is however an overriding provision that such jurisdiction is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and our attention was drawn to a few of these provisions where the disputes specified are to be adjudicated upon in entirely different manner. The most important features of Art. 131 is that it makes no mention of any party other than the Government of India or any one or more of the States who can be arrayed as a disputant. The other distinguishing feature is that the Court is not required to adjudicate upon the disputes in exactly the same way as ordinary courts of law are normally called upon to do far upholding the rights of the parties and enforcement of its orders and decisions. The words in the article "if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends" are words of limitation on the exercise of that jurisdiction. These words indicate that the disputes should be in respect of legal rights and not disputes of a political character. Moreover, this Court is only concerned to give its decision on questions of law or of fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right claimed depends. Once the Court comes to its conclusion on the ca