Judgment

R. M. SAHAI, J.:- Is the State vicariously liable for negligence of its officers in discharge of their statutory duties was answered in the negative by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the ratio laid down by this Court in M/s. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039 : (1965 (2) Cri LJ 144), while reversing the decree for payment of Rs. 1,06,125.72 towards value of the damaged stock with interest thereon at the rate of 6 granted by the trial Court for loss suffered by the appellant due to non-disposal of the goods seized under various control orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). But for determining correctness of the view taken by the High Court granted certificate under Art 133(1) of the Constitution of India as the case involved, substantial questions of law, of general importance. Although the claim of he appellant was negatived mainly on the sovereign power of the State, but, that was only one of the reasons, as the High Court further held that the goods of the appellant having been seized in the exercise of statutory power for violation of the Control Orders and the seizure having been found, by the appropriate authorities, to be valid at least for part, no compensation was liable to be paid to the appellant for the goods which were directed to be returned. The further questions, therefore, that arise for consideration are, whether seizure of the goods in exercise of statutory powers under the Act immunises the State, completely, from any loss or damage suffered by the owner. Whether confiscation of part of the goods absolves the Suite from any claim for the loss or damage suffered by the owner for the goods which are directed to be released or returned to it.

2. Since the High Court did not interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court and decided the appeal as a matter of law, it is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail, except a gist of it so far it is helpful in deciding the issues in question. It has been found and is not disputed that the appellant carried on business in fertiliser and foodgrains under licence issued by the appropriate authorities. Its premises were visited by the Police Inspector, Vigilance Cell on 11th August, 1975 and huge stocks of fertilisers, foodgrains and even non-essential goods were seized. On the report submitted by the Inspector, the Disrict Revenue Officer (in brief the DRO) on 31st August, 1975, in exercise of powers under S. 6A of the Act, directed the fertiliser to be placed in the custody of Assistant Agricultural Officer (in brief AAO) for distribution to needy ryots and the foodgrains and non-essential goods in the custody of Tehsildar for disposing it of immediately and depositing the sale proceeds in the Treasury. The AAO did not take any steps to dispose of the fertiliser. Therefore. the appellant made applications on 17th September, 1975 and 21st September, 1975 before the DRO and or 11th February, 1976 before AAO that since no steps were being taken the fertiliser shall deteriorate and shall be rendered useless causing huge loss to the appellant. Request was made for diverting the fertiliser either to the places mentioned by the appellant as the demand was more there or to release it in it favour for disposal and deposit of the sale price. But neither any order was passed by the DRO nor any action was taken by the AAO On 29th June, 1976 the proceedings under S. 6A of the Act were decided and the stock of horsegram (food grain) was confiscated as the appellants licence had been cancelled. A regards fertiliser it was held that the explanation of the appellant for difference in stock was not satisfactory. The only violation of Control Orders found was improper maintenance of accounts. In consequence of this finding, rather in absence of any material to prove that the appellant was guilty of any serious infringement such as black marketing or adulteration or selling at higher