The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the powers conferred by the Assam Labour and Emigration Act 1901, as amended, and the liability of the Secretary of State for India in Council for alleged defamation.

Wallis, J.

1. This is a suit brought by the Plaintiff Mr. A.M. Ross to recover damages from the Secretary of State for India in Council in respect of two orders made by the Collector of Ganjam, by one of which a local agent working under the Assam Labour and Emigration Act 1901, was suspended and the depot maintained by him closed to recruiting, while on the other the local Agent was dismissed; and also for alleged defamation of the plaintiff by the Governor of Madras in Council in a Government order passed on the appeal of the plaintiff and other interested parties against the Collecters order above referred to. Under Part IV of the aforesaid Act of 1901, as amended in 1908, recruiters known as Garden sirdars are sent by employers in Assam to recruit labourers in Ganjam and other places under a license issued by the authorities in Assam and countersigned by the authorities of the District in which the recruiting is to be carried on. They are under a statutory duty to provide a proper place of accommodation or depot for the recruited coolies and to get each coolys labour contract executed before an appointed officer. Employers may also appoint local agents to supervise them.

2. In the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 91 of the Act, as amended, the Government of Madras issued the Notification of 6th October 1909 relaxing or dispensing with the requirements of certain sections of the act in the case of Garden Sirdars working under the control of the Assam Labour Supply association and other bodies on certain specified conditions. One of the conditions required the Association to employ a local agent in each district where recruiting was carried on, for the purpose of representing the Association in all matters connected with the supervision of the Sirdars. Under condition 8 the local agent was to provide suitable accommodation (a depot) for the labourers engaged. Under condition 9 he was responsible for preventing to the best of his ability all acts of misconduct on the part of the Sirdars; and under condition 10 the license of any local agent, who might be found not to have exercised due care in preventing misconduct on the part of the Sirdars, was liable to be cancelled by the District Magistrate.

3. On the 19th February, 1910 the District Magistrate of Ganjam issued notice to T.S. Rama Sastri, local agent of the Association in the District, calling on him to show cause why his license should not be suspended for habitually allowing illegal recruitment in the Agency tracts where recruitment was prohibited; and on the 21st February he passed the first of the orders complained of suspending the agents license pending the passing of orders as to its cancellation. A copy was sent to the Sub-Collector and Police-Inspector, Berhampore, was were requested to see that the depot was closed to recruiting until further orders issued. By a subsequent order of the 25th July 1910, made upon the report of the Special Assistant Agent as the result of an enquiry-held by him, the District Magistrate cancelled the local agents license.

4. It was admitted before me that, if condition 10 giving the District Magistrate power to cancel the local agents license for failure to exercise due supervision was valid, the legality of the dismissal could not be questioned in the present case; bat it was contended that the condition was ultra vires as Section 67 specified the cases in which the District Magistrate could dismiss local agents, and was exhaustive. I had no hesitation in overruling this contention, as it seemed to me that the condition was a necessary and a proper one to be made under Section 91 of the Act as amended. So much is left to the local agent under the notification, that it would not in my opinion be safe to make these relaxations without reserving to the District Magistrate power to dismiss a local agent who proves untrustworthy. I hold the order of dismissal was not open to objection.

5. It is otherwise with the order of