The State is not a person within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution and the classification of debts for the purpose of priority is reasonable and does not discriminate against any particular class of creditors.

Bhandari, J.

1. This reference raises tho question whether a Government can be deemed to be a person within the meaning of the expression as used in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. One Shiv Parashad who owed a certain sum of money to Govt. on account of license fees for the vend of opium and bhang was adjudicated an insolvent on the 5th January 1954, and was or derfed to be discharged under Section 41 of the Provincial Insolvency Act on the 19th October 1954; The order of discharge however declared that the liability of the insolvent in so far as the debts due to Govt. were concerned would remain unaffected as Section 44 of the Insolvency Act provides that an order of discharge shall not release the insolvent from any debt due to Government.

The insolvent preferred an appeal to the District Judge and challenged the validity of Section 44 on the ground fhat it contravenes the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it has the effect of discriminating between different classes of creditors of the insolvent by according preferential treatment to Government over other creditors. The learned Judge is of the opinion that this case involves the decision of an important question of constitutional law and has referred this case to this Court under Section 113 and Order 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Mr. H. L. Sarin, who appears for the petitioner, contends that the State must be deemed to bo a person within the meaning of Article 14, for the expression person as defined in the General Clauses Act includes any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. A State, it is argued, is an artificial person, for it consists of a complete body of free persons united together for the common benefit.

Reliance has been placed on certain authorities in which it has been held that when the State en-gages in business or commerce such as is carried on by a private individual or corporation, it must subject itself to the same obligations as were imposed on, and place itself in the same position as a private individual or corporation except in the manner of taxation, Moti Lal v. Govt. of the State of U. P., AIR 1951 All 257 (FB) (A), Amraoti Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. N. H. Mujumdar, AIR 1953 Nag 35 (B) and Kesheo Prasad v. State of M. P., (S) AIR 1955 Nag 177 (C).

4. These rulings are, in my opinion, inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The natural and obvious meaning of the expression person is a living human being, a man, woman or child, an individual of the human race. As used in law the word includes natural persons and artificial persons like corporations and joint stock companies, but it does not include a State or Government, for although a State is in the language of Vattel "a moral person, having an understanding and a will, capable of possessing and acquiring rights and of directing and fulfilling obligations", the State in its political organisation is entirely different and distinct from the inhabitants who, may happen to reside there.

Similarly a Government cannot fall within the ambit of the expression person, for although in common parlance Government is synonymous with State, in actual fact the State is a country or assemblage of people while tho Government is the political agency through which it acts. It is true that the State is capable of suing and being sued but that is so not because the State is a person, but because Article 300 of the Constitution has made an express Provision in that behalf.

It has prescribed the method by which the Indian Exchequer might itself institute proceedings and might he made the subject of proceedings for the purpose of determining the rights between the State and the subjects of the State. A suit against the State cannot be regarded as being against any person or any real body corporate Doya Narain v. Secretary of state for India in council ILR 14 Cal. 256 at p 273 (D). It has been, held repeatedly that the expressi