The Government cannot be said to be carrying on business within the meaning of the word in the clause of the Letters Patent and the High Court on its Original Side cannot try the case by reason of Section 106(2) of the Government of India Act.

Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff brings this suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council in the following circumstances;--He made, sales to customers in Salem and Coimbatore of a quantity amounting in all to 100 marcs of gold thread. The gold thread was dispatched to the purchasers from a place called Nellikuppam in South Arcot and in transit it was seized by the Inspector of Customs, Cuddalore Circle, who alleged that the gold thread had been smuggled into British India and had not paid duty. The case for the plaintiff was that he had bought it ultimately through a sub-purchaser from Messrs. Parry & Co., who had imported it from France and paid duty upon it. The Collector of Customs, to whom an appeal lay from the District Officer, or who, rather had to affirm or disaffirm the action of the District Officer, made an order On the 30th July, 1924 whereby he confiscated the goods and ordered their sale. Thereupon there was an appeal to the Governor in Council which was made by the plaintiff and was rejected. He now seeks the assistance of the ordinary Courts of the land to get his goods back or their value, and he has brought this suit which is one of trover against the Secretary of State on the ground that what was done amounted to a wrongful conversion of his goods, his case of course being that the orders made were illegal inasmuch as in truth and in fact his goods never were smuggled at all.

2. It seems to me that there are three difficulties that the plaintiff has not surmounted. In the first place, as he did not ask the Court for leave to bring his suit on the Original Side of this Court, he is faced with this difficulty that he must show that his cause of action arose wholly in Madras. The goods never came to Madras except a very small portion by way of exhibit for the purpose of this case, and if any wrong was done it was done by the seizure and detention of the goods in Salem or Coimbatore or Cuddalore, and the only step in the whole transaction that can be suggested to have been performed within the Madras jurisdiction is the order of the Collector of Customs confirming the seizure and directing the goods to be retained at Cuddalore. It seems to me quite impossible to say that that really was an effective dealing with the goods. If the seizure of the goods was tortious it no doubt made the Collector of Customs a tortfeasor, but that is quite a different proposition from saying that, because owing to something he did in Madras he was a tort-feasor and had allied himself with tort-feasors, in Cuddalore, that makes the tort in any sense committed in Madras. That would be enough to dispose of this case, but two other points were raised and I think it right to deal with them.

3. In the first place, it is said that, apart from any question of the place in which the wrong was committed, this case can be brought within the meaning of Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure in its second half which provides a jurisdiction "if the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the local limits of the jurisdiction" of the Court in question. It is said here that the Secretary of State for India, which must be taken to be a paraphrase for the Madras Government, carries on business within the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, as the headquarters of the Madras Government is situated in Fort St. George. Similarly I suppose it would have to be contended that at some time or other jurisdiction would be conferred upon the Subordinate Judges Court of the Nilgiris, because during certain parts of the year the headquarters of the Madras Government is at Ootacamund. In my opinion the words of the section do not cover the case of Government at all. The only doubt I had was with regard to the word "resides" occurring in the section. I was inclined to the view at one time that Government must be said to "reside" in the place where its official headquarters are located, b