Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. N. MUKHERJEE, SEN GUPTA
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
BRINDABAN CHANDRA PRAMANIK - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 30 Of 1951
Decided On : JULY 24, 1956
The requisition of paddy under Rule 75a of the Defence of India Rules was not an illegal or unauthorized act -- it was an act under statutory power. It is difficult to see how the claim for statutory compensation can be a liability in respect of an actionable wrong. To bring such a claim within the scope of Article 10 by contending that it is really a suit for damages for an actionable wrong, to wit, withholding the payment of the compensation, appears to be to stretch the scope of Article 10 unduly; if Article 10 be used for every case in which payment is withheld, there would be no need for Article 9.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs' claim was for recovery of statutory compensation for 1020 Mds. of paddy requisitioned by Government under Rule 75a of the Defence of India Rules in June 1944. The paddy was delivered in accordance with the requisition between 25-6-1944 and 2-7-1944. The price of the paddy was assessed at Rs. 7/4/- per maund and on that basis the dues of the plaintiffs came to Rs. 7253/10/- but the amount was not paid by the Government. After the partition the plaintiffs on 8-12-1948 instituted a suit for recovery of the amount against the Province of West Bengal.
Finding of the Court:
The liability of the Province of undivided Bengal to pay compensation for the requisitioned paddy amounted to a liability for actionable wrong and that therefore the liability had devolved upon the Province of West Bengal in view of Clause (2), Sub-clause (b) of Article 10, for the cause of action arose wholly within the territory of West Bengal, viz. , in Midnapore District where the paddy was delivered after service of the requisition order.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is barred under Section 17 (2), Defence of India Act, 1939? 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3. Whether the plaintiffs' claim was enforceable against the State of West Bengal? 4. Whether in view of the provisions of Indian Independent (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, the Province of East Bengal and not the Province of West Bengal is liable for the liability which was a liability of undivided Bengal before partition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A suit for compensation for requisitioned goods is not a suit which would come within the scope of the provisions of Section 17 (2), Defence of India Act 1939. 2. The scope of Article 2 was explained by Courtney-Terrell C. J. in the case of AIR 1936 Pat 513 (A) as follows: "the object of the article is the protection of public officials who, bona fide purporting to act ir the exercise of a statutory power, have exceeded that power and have committed a tortious act; it resembles in this respect the English Public Authorities Protection Act. If the act complained of is within the terms of the statute, no protection is needed, for the plaintiff has suffered no legal wrong. The protection is needed when an actionable wrong has been committed and to secure the protection, there must be in the first place a bona fide belief by the official that the act complained of was justified by the statute, secondly the act must have been performed under colour of a statutory duty, and thirdly the act must be in itself a tort in order to give rise to the cause of action. It is against such actions for tort that the statute gives protection. Article 2 has no application to suits to recover statutory compensation independently of any question" of tort". 3. The requisitioning of paddy being a legal act in pursuance of a statute cannot be regarded as an actionable wrong, and therefore, we are thrown back on Article 9 which relates to liabilities in respect of such loans, guarantees and other financial obligations of the Governor-General in Council or of a province as are outstanding immediately before the appointed, day. 4. The liability to pay compensation for requisitioned goods is not a contractual liability but is a statutory liability, and therefore Article 8 is ruled out.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
( 1 ) TO the respondents' claim for compensation (Rs. 7,253/10/-) for one thousand maunds and twenty seers of paddy, requisitioned in 1944 by the then Province of Bengal under Rule 75a of the Defence of India Rules, three technical defences were raised by the Province of West Bengal which, was made the sole defendant in the suit, brought in December, 1948. The merits of these defences have to be considered in the present appeal.
( 2 ) THE first two defences went to the root of the respondents' (plaintiffs') right of action --one attacking the maintainability of a suit of this nature, and the other raising the bar of limitation. The third defence denied the liability of the defendant, the Province of West Bengal, or for die matter of that, of the present State of West Bengal, for the plaintiffs' claim in view of the transitional Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, which admittedly governs the rights and liabilities of the parties before us. There was also a defence, taken in the written statement, under Section 80, Civil P. C. , but it was not pursued beyond the stage of pleadings.
( 3 ) THE requisition of the paddy was admitted. Its receipt or delivery to the appropriate authorities of the then Province of Bengal was also admitted. It was admitted further that compensation for the requisitioned paddy had been determined under Clause 4 of Rule 75a of the Defence of India Rules at Rs. 7/4/- per maund which tallied with the amount of the plaintiffs' claim. That claim, however, was attempted to be resisted on the three technical pleas which I have set out above.
( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge negatived all the defence contentions and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Hence this appeal by the defendant Province, now State of West Bengal.
( 5 ) THE Section 80 plea has not been repeated in this Court but the other three defences have been strongly pressed. The learned Junior Government Pleader has laid particular stress on the plea of limitation and he has also urged that the suit is not maintainable in view of s. 17 (2) of the Defence of India Act and that, in any event, having regard to the provisions of the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947, the liability for the plaintiffs' claim cannot be held to be that of the province or State of West Bengal, and, as such, the present suit must fail.
( 6 ) I am unable to accept any of the above contentions.
( 7 ) THE relevant facts stand admitted and they are as follows;
( 8 ) ON or about 16-6-1944, the statutory notice of requisition was served on the respondents and, between 25th June and 2nd July following, the requisitioned paddy, one thousand maunds and twenty seers, was duly delivered by them to the Civil Supply Department of the then Province of Bengal.
( 9 ) THERE was assessment of the statutory compensation by the appropriate government authorities under Clause 4 of Rule 75a of the Defence of India Rules at the rate of Rs. 7/4/- per maund, aggregating Rs. 7253710/- for the entire quantity of one thousand maunds and twenty seers, which was accepted by the plaintiffs. The amount, however, was not paid and, eventually, after the partition, the matter was referred to the Application Committee and, in spite of repeated demands and requests from the plaintiffs, and assurances from the local Government officers, the money remained unpaid till 8-12-1948, when the present suit was instituted after due service of the requisite statutory notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. on or about 8-9-1948. The suit, as I have already said, was sought to be defeated on three technical pleas, to which ample reference has already been made and I shall deal with those pleas in the order in which they have, been set out above.
( 10 ) IN my opinion, Section 17 (2), Defence of India Act has no application to the present case. In the first place, it is not a suit for damages or, to quote I the statute, "for any damage ca
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
