The main legal point established in the judgment is the complete immunity ensuring to the Government under S.6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and the limitations of judicial options in extending relief.

1. The appellant sought leave to sue as an indigent person. He was unsuccessful. Relief was declined, not because he was not indigent but because the court below thought 'that a suit to enforce such a claim is not maintainable'. Presumably, the court below had R.5(d) or (f) of 0.33 CPC in view.

2. The appellant was called for an interview on 14-7-1981 for the post of an Excise Guard after qualifying in the written test and physical fitness test. The interview card reached him at 4 p. m. on that day, by which time the interview was over. The appellant says, he lost his last chance to secure a job. He avers gross negligence on the part of the Post Office which received the card on 6-7-1981 but delivered it only nine days later, on 14-7-1981. He wanted to sue for damages. The Union of India opposed the application relying on S.6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which exempts the Government of India from liability by reason of loss or misdelivery. The Section is in these terms:

"6. Exemption from liability for loss, misdelivery, delay or damage: The Government shall not incur any liability by reason of the loss, misdelivery or delay of, or damage to, any postal article in course of transmission by post, except in so far as such liability may in express terms be undertaken by the Central Government as hereinafter provided; and no officer of the post office shall incur any liability by reason of any such loss, misdelivery, delay or damage, unless he has caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default."

The appellant challenges the view of the Court below and contends that the section aforesaid will not attract 0.33 R.S. He would further say that it is not as if there is no cause of action. The appellant relies on the decisions reported in Union of India v. Mohammed Nazim (AIR 1980 SC 431), Union of India v. Ramji Lal and Others (AIR 1965 All. 184), Union of India v. Sri Narayan Agarwalla (AIR 1955 Cal. 371), Machiraju Parthasarathy v. The Tobacco Export Promotion Council and Others (AIR 1976 AP 321) and Union of India and another v. Yelgum Veeraswamy and Others (AIR 1979 NOC 126). The first four cases offer no parallel to the case of the appellant, and hence is of no assistance to him. Those decisions deal with the expression 'loss' occurring in the section and take the view that 'loss' means loss of the article altogether, not to the claimant alone but to the Government also. The question whether the exemption would extend to such cases of loss was considered in those cases. The case on hand is not one of loss, but of delayed delivery and the meaning of the expression'loss' therefore is of no matter in considering this question Admittedly, there is delayed delivery in this case. The question is whether the immunity under S.6 would save the Government. It would, for, the section centers complete immunity as far as Government is concerned, though the position is different as far as an Officer of the Post Office is concerned, if delay was caused fraudulently or by wilful act or default. The decision reported in Union of India & Another v. Yelgum Veeraswamy & Others (AIR 1979 NOC 126) appears to take the view that even in such cases, liability would arise. We do not have the benefit of the reasoning of the learned judges as the text of the judgment is not available. But, on the language of the section, we are inclined to think that the immunity ensuring to the Government, is complete. A similar view was taken in Triefus and Co. v. Post Office (1957-2 All ER 387) referring to S.13 of the Post Office Act, 1898. 0.33 R.5(d) requires rejection of an application where 'the allegations do not show a cause of action." When the section in clear terms confers an immunity on the Government against action for damages, it is a case where no cause of action is shown. We are expressing this view in the context of 0.33 R.S. This will not preclude the appellant from remedies, if any or making representations before a competent aut