Back
1850 Supreme(SC) 5
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE,—THE RIGHT HON DR LUSHINGTON, THE RIGHT HON SIR EDWARD RYAN AND THE RIGHT HON SIR JOHN TAYLOR COLERIDGE
THOMAS EALES ROGERS - Appellant
Versus
RAJENDRO DUTT - Respondents
On appeal from the Supreme Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : June 27 and 28,1850.
Privy Councillor,- Assessor,—The Right Hon Sir Lawrence Peel.
An action in tort requires a legally wrongful act that violates a legal right. Mere pecuniary loss (damnum sine injuria) is insufficient if the act was a lawful exercise of power, such as a government restricting its servants from dealing with parties making unreasonable demands.
Headnote:(A) Tort - Action on the case - Requirement of a wrongful act - Legal injury versus harm to interests - An action in tort requires that the act complained of be legally wrongful and prejudicially affect a legal right; mere harm to interests, however direct, is insufficient to maintain an action.
(B) Right to Trade - The right to exercise a lawful trade or calling does not include an absolute right to be employed by others or a right to dictate terms to the government.
(C) Exercise of Administrative Power - A government official may lawfully restrict government servants from cooperating with or employing a third party if it is honestly believed that the third party's demands are exorbitant and prejudicial to the public interest.
Facts of the case:
A government official, in his capacity as a superintendent of marine, issued an order prohibiting government-employed pilots from allowing a specific steam-tug to tow any vessel under their charge. This order was issued after the owners of the tug demanded exorbitant payment for towing a vessel during a period of public crisis, refusing the standard government rates. The tug owners sued for loss of profits during the period the order was in force.
Findings of Court:
The order issued by the official was a lawful act. The government has the right to restrict its servants regarding whom they shall employ or cooperate with in the performance of their duties, especially when such restrictions are based on the belief that the third party's demands are unreasonable and prejudicial to public interests.
Issues: Whether the issuance of an order prohibiting government pilots from allowing a specific tug to tow vessels constitutes a wrongful act and an invasion of the legal right to carry on a trade.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an action in tort to be maintainable, the act must be legally wrongful as regards the party complaining, meaning it must violate a legal right. The right to exercise a trade is not a right to be employed by others. The government's restriction on its servants' cooperation with a party making exorbitant demands is a lawful exercise of power and does not constitute a legal injury, even if it results in pecuniary loss.
Result: Judgment of the Court below reversed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tort
-
economic torts
- interference with trade
-
economic torts
-
administrative law
-
public officers
- exercise of power
- liability of public servants
-
public officers
Judgement
THIS was an action brought in the Supreme Court at Calcutta, by the Respondents against the Appellant, under the following circumstances —
The Appellant was the Superintendent of marine at Calcutta, an official Government situation under the East India Company, and in that capacity had the control of the whole of the Marine department under Government, including the superintendence and control of the Bengal pilots employed by the Government, who were the only pilots who are engaged in piloting vessels on the river Hooghly. There was no legal obligation to employ a pilot, but from the dangerous nature of the river no ship could be safely navigated up or down unless m charge of a pilot. Tugs were required for bringing vessels up the river. The Respondents were the owners, or part owners, of a steam tug called The " Underwriter," which was employed in towing vessels on that river. It appeared that there were two rates of payment for the steam-tugs employed, the first called the Government certificate, according to a tariff, for the time employed, and the second by special contract.
On the 20th of September, 1857, whilst the Indian mutiny was raging in full force, and every exertion of the Indian Government and its officers was being made to face the difficulties in which they were placed, Her Majestys ship " Belleisle," with troops on board, destined for Calcutta, arrived at the mouth of the river Hooghly ; and on the 19th of that month, the Captain of the " Underwriter, " having understood that she wanted steam, went on board The " Belleisle " and entered into a negotiation with the Captain of that ship as to the terms upon which she should be taken in tow. The Captain of the " Underwriter" required at first Rs. 3,000, and then Rs. 2,500, and produced a contract ready prepared, for the Captain of The " Belleisle " to sign. This, however, he refused to agree to ; when The "Underwriter" left The "Belleisle," and carried on shore a telegram from the Captain of The "Belleisle" to Mr. Beadon, the Secretary to the Government of India, asking to be allowed to employ The " Underwriter," but without stating the terms demanded by her Captain. Beadon replied to this communication, authorising Captain Rodd of The " Belleisle " to employ The " Underwriter" under Government certificate, which would have entitled her to a certain fixed rate per diem, according to the work done and, on the morning of the 20th, the Captain of The " Underwriter " having proceeded on hoard The " Belleisle," was informed of this by Captain Rodd. He, however, ret used to tow upon certificate, and still required a contract for Rs. 2,500; and thereupon Captain Rodd again telegraphed to Beadon, and requested instructions. This message Beadon sent at once to the Appellant, with a note, telling him shortly what had happened, and asking what, in the circumstances, had better be done, when the Appellant, considering the charge exorbitant, and that it was an attempt to make a market of the necessities of the Government, at so critical a period, and that it was of great importance that some step should be taken to prevent the recurrence of similar attempts, went to Beadon and expressed this to him, as his opinion, and that he thought the better course was to inform the agents of The " Underwriter," that if they declined to take The Belleisle " in tow, an order would be issued, prohibiting the pilots of the port, who should be in charge of any vessel, from taking steam of The Underwriter ". Beadon having approved of this course, Hill, the officiating first assistant, made a communication to that effect to the agent of the " Underwriter " at Calcutta, and the Captain of the " Belleisle " in the circumstances, refused to take steam of The "Underwriter" except under Government certificate.
On the 22nd of September, 1857, the Appellant, in his official capacity, directed an order to be issued in the terms stated by him to Beadon. This order was as follows —" Steamer Und
