GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J. N. SARMA, J.
State of Assam and others -Appellant
Versus
Md.Nizamuddin Ahmed -Respondent
First Appeal No. 102 of 1995
Decided On : 11-01-1999
Seeds Act, 1966 - Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 - Suit for compensation and damages for illegal seizure of seeds and loss of business - Maintainability - Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation as claimed - Whether the defendants had caused loss to the plaintiff by illegal seizure of the seeds causing loss to the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a seed merchant, filed a suit for compensation and damages for illegal seizure of seeds and loss of business. The defendants, police officers, seized the seeds from the plaintiff's shop and house, claiming that the plaintiff was carrying on the business without a license. The plaintiff claimed that he was a member of the Indian Farmers Association and was therefore exempt from the licensing requirement. The trial court found that the seizure was illegal and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the seizure of the seeds was in exercise of the sovereign power of the State and the plaintiff was not entitled to any damages. The court also held that the imposition of interest @ 12% was not legal as there can be no interest on damages.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether the defendants had caused loss to the plaintiff by illegal seizure of the seeds causing loss to the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation as claimed in the suit? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the damages awarded?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was maintainable as the plaintiff had a cause of action against the defendants for illegal seizure of the seeds. 2. The court held that the defendants had caused loss to the plaintiff by illegal seizure of the seeds. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation as claimed in the suit as the seizure of the seeds was in exercise of the sovereign power of the State. 4. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest on the damages awarded as there can be no interest on damages.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, and dismissed the suit.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16-3-1994 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Dhubri in Money suit No. 10 of 1987.
2. A suit was filed for realisation of compensation damage for alleged illegal seizure of seeds and loss of business the claim was for an amount of Rs. 80,000/- with interest @ 18% till realisation with cost and other reliefs.
3. The plaintiff being a seed merchant used to store and sell seeds of different agricultural products such as jute, vegetables, oil seeds etc. The plaintiff also is a member of Indian Farmers Association. The name and style of the business of the plaintiffs was Hindusthan Seeds Company at Bilasipara under Dhubri District.
4. On last 22-4-87 at 3 p.m. the defendant No. 6, O/c, Bilasipara Police Station by seizure list had taken possession of certain seeds from the shop of the plaintiff and seized some other seeds from the house of the plaintiff. The value of the goods so seized was claimed by the plaintiff to be Rs. 70,000/-. The Bilasipara police station had no storage facility to keep the seeds and ultimately the seeds were damaged because of the negligence, carelessness and vindictive behaviour of the defendant No. 6. The alleged illegal seizure had completely damaged the plaintiffs business for the whole year and thereby the plaintiff had sustained a loss not less than Rs. 10,000/- as profit. A notice under Section 80 was issued and thereafter the suit was filed.
5. The defendants filed a written statement wherein the main plea which was taken was that the plaintiff was carrying the business without any licence from the proper authority and as such the whole business of the plaintiffs was illegal. The District Agricultural Officer had no information about the firm of the plaintiff. It is averred that the police has received complaint from the local Anchalik AGP workers regarding the illegal business of the plaintiff and hence the police seized the seeds. It was alleged that the plaintiff violated the provisions of Seeds Act and hence the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. 4 issues were framed in the suit. They are as follows :
i) Whether the suit is maintainable?
ii) Whether the defendants had caused loss to the plaintiff by illegal seizure of the seeds causing loss to the plaintiff?
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get compensation as claimed in the suit?
iv) To what relief, if any the plaintiff is entitled?
7. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the said issues. It may be stated herein that a criminal case was also instituted against the plaintiff being GR case No. 688/1987, but he was acquitted in that case. The following are the witnesses examined in the suit.
i) PW-1 Md Naymuiddin
ii) PW 2 Ahmed Ali iii) P. W. 3 Jafarulla Siddiqe,
iv) P. W. 4 Raghu Nath Prasad
v) D. W. 1 Rana Lal.
Certain documents were also exhibited.
8. There is an Act in the name and style the "Seeds Act, 1966". The Act extends to the whole of India. Section 7 of the Act provides for regulation of sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties. That Section is quoted below :
"7. Regulation of sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties,- No person shall, himself or by any other person on his behalf, carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety, unless -
(a) such seed is identifiable as to its kind or variety;
(b) such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) of section 6;
(c) the container of such seed bears in the prescribed manner, the mark or label containing the correct particulars thereof, specified under clause (b) of section 6; and
(d) he complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed."
Section 9 provides for grant of certificate by certification agency. Section 22 provides for protection of action taken in good faith. There is an order in the name and style
AIR 1994 SC 2663 : 1994 AIR SCW 3753
AIR 1986 SC 494 : 1986 Cri LJ 192 : 1986 All LJ 653
AIR 1984 SC 1026 : 1984 Cri LJ 830
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.