Judgment

MITTER, J.

( 1 ) 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 courtrejected while that of the other group is to stay the hearing of the suits. Thesuits are all of the same pattern in each of which the State of Bihar figuresas the plaintiff. The Unoin of India is the first defendant in all of themwhile the second defendant in six is Hindustan Steel Ltd. and in threeothers the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. The cause of action in allthe suits is of the same nature. Briefly stated the plaintiffs case in all thesuits is that "due to the negligence or deliberate action of the servants ofboth defendants there was a short delivery of iron and steel materialordered by the plaintiff to various sites in the State of Bihar in connectionwith the construction work of the Gandak Project". As the goods werein all cases booked by rail for despatch to the project site, both defendantsare sought to be made liable for short delivery, the first defendant as theowner of the railways and the second defendant as the consignor of thegoods 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 tobe passed either against the first defendant "or alternatively against thesecond defendant". Normally all suits of this kind are instituted all overindia in different courts beginning from the courts of the lowestjurisdiction to the High court exercising original jurisdiction. The onlydistinguishing feature of this series of suits from others of everyday occurrence in different courts is that a State is the plaintiff in eachcase. In all suits of a similar nature which are filed in courts other thanthis court, a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is anessential pro-requisite. No such notice has been served in any of these cases. The applications were set down for trial of three issues sought to be raisedby way of preliminary issues. They are as follows :-1. Whether the alleged cause or causes of action in this suit arewithin the scope of Article 131 of the Constitution ?2. Whether this suit is within the scope of Article 131 of the Constitution in view of a non-state, viz. , defendant No. 2, having beenmade a party to the suit ?3. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 80 C. P. C. for want of notice to defendant No. 1 ?

( 2 ) THE question before this court is, whether the dispute in thesecases is within the purview of that article (quoted in the foot-note ). Itmust be noted that the article confers jurisdiction on this court to theexclusion of all other courts in any dispute between the parties motionedtherein. There is however an over-riding provision that such jurisdictionis subject to the provisions of the Constitution and our attention was drawnto a few of these provisions where the disputes specified are to be adjudicatedupon in entirely different manner. The most important feature of Article131 is that it makes no mention of any party other than the governmentarticle 131. Subject to the provisions (b) between the Government of

of this Constitution, the Supreme india and any State or States

court shall, to the exclusion of any on one side and one or more

other court, have original other States on the other ; or

jurisdiction in any dispute (f) between two or more States,

(a) between the Government and if and in so far as the dispute involves

one or more States ; or any question (whether of law or fact)

on which the existence or extent of into or executed before the commencement

a legal right depends : of the Constitution, continues

provided that the said jurisdiction in operation after such commencement,

shall not extend to a dispute arising or which provides that

out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, the said jurisdiction shall not extend

engagement, sanad or other similar to such a dispute.

instrument which, having been entered

of I