A suit against a railway administration owned by the Central Government must be instituted against the Union of India, and not against the Manager of the particular railway administration.

1. This appeal has been referred to a Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the question of law arising for consideration in the case.

2. The plaintiff in the case is the State of Kerala and the defendant, the Southern Railway, represented by its General Manager. The suit was to recover damages on account of short delivery. The plaintiff booked 2000 tons of rice in 21310 bags from Bareilli Railway Station on "Railway Risk" for being transported to Trivandrum Central Station. It was alleged that rice delivered at the Trivandrum Central Railway Station was short by 79378-tbs. and that out of the quantity delivered, 327 bags were found to be damaged. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 28,208.70p. as damages.

3. The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable as the Union of India was not made a party to the suit and that a suit by a State against the Union of India could be instituted only in the Supreme Court of India under Art.131(a) of the Constitution. The other contentions of the defendant need not be mentioned here as they are not necessary for the disposal of this appeal. The trial court raised 9 issues and on the basis of a petition put in by the defendant for hearing certain issues as preliminary issues the court below has heard arguments on those issues and entered findings on them.

4. Issue No. 3 is as follows: "Will the suit lie in this court? Is the suit barred by the provisions of the Constitution of India?" On this issue the court below found that since the Union of India has not been made a party to the suit clause (a) of Art.131 of the Constitution has no application and therefore the suit was not liable to be dismissed on that ground. On Issue No.1 which runs "Is the suit maintainable? Can a decree be passed against the defendant as now impleaded?" the court below found that the Union of India was a necessary party to the suit and that since the Union of India has not been impleaded as a party, the suit was incompetent. On the strength of this finding the court below dismissed the suit and this appeal is filed by the plaintiff from the decree.

5. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant submitted that the view of the court below that the Union of India is a necessary party to the suit is not correct as under the relevant provisions of the Indian Railways Act 1890, hereinafter referred to as the Act, a suit can be maintained against the Southern Railway, represented by its General Manager. He referred to S.77, 80 and 140 of the Act and submitted that a suit can be instituted against a railway administration without the Union of India being made a party to it, as each railway administration is a legal entity capable of being sued. S.3(6) of the Act defines "railway administration" as follows:

"'railway administration' or 'administration' in the case of a railway administered by the Government means the Manager of the railway and includes the Government and, in the case of a railway administered by a railway company, means the railway company;"

In the Act of 1879 the word 'Manager' alone occurred because most of the railways in those days were managed and administered by the railway companies and therefore the managers of those companies or the railway companies themselves represented the railway administrations. The word with reference to "Government" was introduced in the Act of 1890 with a view to enlarge the definition of "railway administration" so as to include the Government owning the railway. The words "railway administration" must be deemed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also those things which the definition clause declares that they shall include. Looking at the definition of "Railway administration", it is clear that it includes the Government also. Therefore a suit against a railway administration is in substance and in reality a suit against the Government or the State owning the railway. S.79 of the Code