Judgement

Appeal (No. 68 of 1925) from a decree of the High Court (August 16, 1923) affirming a decree of the District Judge of Nasik (February 12, 1923).

The suit was brought on June 26, 1922, by the appellants and other plaintiffs against the Secretary of State for India in Council, and the Collector and District Magistrate of Nasik. The plaintiffs claimed a declaration that a notification published by the Bombay Government on June 6. 1922, under the Bombay District Police Act, 1890, was invalid, and an injunction restraining the defendants from recovering from the plaintiffs tinder the notification.

The facts are stated in the judgment of the Judicial Committee, and the material sections of the above Act are fully set out in the report of the proceedings in the High Court at I. L. R. 48 B. 87.

The District Judge dismissed the suit for non-compliance with the provisions of s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure; he was also of opinion that the notification in question was not invalid.

An appeal to the High Court was dismissed.

Shah A.C.J. was of opinion that s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, did not apply, as the suit was for an injunction; also that neither s. 81 of the District Police Act, 1890, nor

s. 4 (f) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, prevented the suit from being maintained. He was however of opinion upon the facts that the notification was valid. Kemp J. was of opinion that s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was fatal to the suit he agreed that the District Police Act, 1890, ss. 80, 81, and the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, s. 4 (/), did not apply. He agreed with Shah A.C.J. and the District Judge in holding on the facts that the notification was not illegal.

1927. March 24, 25, 28. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellants.

Sir George Lowndes K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the respondents.

The arguments, both as to s. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and as to the validity of the notification under the District Police Act, 1890, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

May 27. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

VISCOUNT SUMNER. In this action forty-eight plaintiffs joined in suing the Secretary of State for India and the Collector and District Magistrate of Nasik for two kinds of relief, (a) a declaration that certain official notices and orders were ultra vires and invalid, and (b) an injunction permanently restraining all executive action thereunder. Unless the right to the first relief was made out, the prayer for the second necessarily failed. The suit was begun less than two months after notice of the intention to bring it had been given to the respondents. It was dismissed by the District Judge on all grounds, and by the High Court of Bombay as well, but, as to one of the learned judges, not altogether on the same grounds. The plaintiffs now appeal.

In April, 1921, serious disorder occurred at Malegaon, in the District of Nasik, Bombay, connected with the Khilafat agitation, and in the consequent unlawful assemblies and riots there was loss of life and much damage to property. The Mahomedan weavers, who formed the large majority of the male inhabitants of the place, were the chief culprits, though it is not likely that they acted without instigation from other parties. Some persons were punished criminally, I but the question remained how the injured parties were to be compensated and how order was to be maintained in the future. An inquiry was accordingly held, and amounts were fixed by way of compensation to persons who had suffered in the riots. The Government decided to put in force the provisions of the Bombay District Police Act No. IV. of 1890 and orders were duly made for the employment of additional police at the expense of the inhabitants and for payment of compensation for the injuries sustained. Under these orders the income tax payers, a small class, and the great body of the weavers were designated as the parties to pay t