The State is not liable for the tortious acts of its servants unless such acts are authorized or ratified by the State.

Ramratna Singh, J.

1. The only question which arises in this appeal is, whether the State is liable for the tortious acts of its servants.

2. The facts, admitted or established, are these. Respondent No. 1 was carrying on business in cloth at Bhagalpur in the name and style of M/S. Ajoy Bharat Stores. Respondent No. 6 was his salesman. On the 4th October, 1951, 222 pairs of Saris and dhotis were seized from this shop for contravention of Clause (9) of the Bihar Cotton Coth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1948 promulgated under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 as also for contravention of conditions 2 and 3 of his Licence issued under the said Order. The two respondents were convicted by a Magistrate, Shri D. N. Thakur, under Section 7 of the said Act for the aforesaid contraventions; and in pursuance of the powers conferred by the Act, the learned Magistrate passed orders dated the 23rd March, 1952 forfeiting to Government the dhotis and Saris that bad been seized. An appeal preferred to the Sessions Judge by the respondents was dismissed, on the 14th July, 1954. Imam, C. J. of this Court set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the relevant provisions of the said Order, 1948 had been declared to be unconstitutional by a Bench of this Court.

3. While the case was pending before the Magistrate, respondent No. 1 filed a petition on the 22nd March, 1952 for the release of 206 pairs of Saris and dhotis on the ground that the allega tion of charging of high prices was in respect of the remaining sixteen pairs only. But, on the 25th, March, 1952, the learned Magistrate directed that as the cloths were not required for the purpose of the case, all the 222 pairs of Saris and dhoties should be sold away before a respectable officer after observing the necessary formalities and the sale proceeds should be deposited in the treasury. On the 5th November, 1954 the two respondents filed a petition before the same Magistrate for release of all the pairs of Saris and dhoties in view of the order of this Court setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Magistrate passed an order directing the release of the cloths to the respondents; but it was reported subsequently that the bags of cloths, which were abnormally damaged and cut by rats and white ants, had already been sold by the Malkhana Magistrate, Mr. Ibrahim, and the sale price that is Rs. 350.00 only had been deposited in the treasury.

4. Then, respondent No. 1 instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a decree against the State of Bihar for Rs. 3,083/10/3, being the price of the Saris and dhoties which had been seized. It was alleged that, in fact, the cloths were not sold, but they were shown to have been sold on paper only.

5. The State of Bihar disputed the claim of the plaintiff respondent and asserted that the seizure was made bona fide in the course of normal administration of law and justice, and in any case, the State was not liable for the unlawful or negligent acts, if any, of its servants.

The additional Subordinate judge of Bhagalpur, who tried the suit found that the price of the seized dhotis and Saris, was Rs. 3,083/10/3. He also found that there was no evidence to show that the cloths were actually cut by white-ants or that they were actually auction-sold, except the order of Mr. Ibrahim dated the 29th February, 1953 in which he said that inasmuch as the appeal had been dismissed and the cloth bags had been damaged by white ants and rats, the same should be sold by auction and the sale proceeds should be deposited in the treasury. He, however, held that the State was not responsible for the wrongful act of the Malkhana Officer which resulted in the alleged sale of the cloths at a grossly inadequate sum of Rs. 350.00 only. The suit was, therefore dismissed.

In appeal the plaintiff impleaded also Mr. Ibrahim and some other Government servants as respondents, but the appeal was dismissed against them, as they had not b