The court ruled that actions taken under the Essential Commodities Act must establish good faith for protection against claims, ruling in favor of defendants due to lack of malice.

1. Heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the State - Appellants as well as Mr. B. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff - respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India / pro forma Respondents.

2. This First Appeal has been carried from the judgment and decree dated 21-9-2001 and dated 25-9-2001 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) South Tripura, Udaipur in Money Suit No. 2 of 1996.

3. The Respondent No. 1 as the plaintiff had instituted the aforesaid money suit for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000.00 (Rupees ten lakhs) with interest thereon for damages caused to him by way of illegal seizure of saleable cloths etc., damages to his shop and business, mental and physical sufferance, harassment and lowering his image and dignity in the society. In paragraph 5 of the plaint the respondent - plaintiff pleaded that while he was doing his business strictly in accordance with the terms of the licence issued to him under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'), on 28-11-1992 at about 6 p.m., a contingent of the Border Security Forces (for short, 'the B. S. F.') (Defendant No. 4), raided his shop and in his presence seized illegally and most arbitrarily all saleable clothes stored in his shop. No seizure list whatsoever pertaining to such seizure of the articles and materials was supplied to him till the date of filing of the plaint i.e. 4-1-96. It was further alleged, inter alia, in the plaint that immediately after such seizure, simultaneously a criminal case was registered against the respondent including 10 others before the Court of learned Special Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, being Special Case No. 12 (SC / B) of 1992 on the basis of Puran Rajbari P. S. Case No. 2 (12) 92 under S. 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, being registered in connection with FIR lodged on 8-2-92 by Respondent No. 3, Sri Sudip Kumar Roy, who was the then Director, Food and Civil Supply, Govt. of Tripura. This case was resulted in acquittal of the respondent No. 1 vide judgment and order dated 3-2-95.

4. Meanwhile, after such illegal seizure, the plaintiff / respondent No. 1 was refused to get the licence to carry out his business in cloths i.e. mill made, hawker, handloom etc. renewed by the concerned authority for the year 1993-94 for which he had suffered irreparable loss and misery in his business coupled with mental anxiety that was portrayed vividly in paragraph - 21 of the pleadings of the plaint in a break up under the seven heads i.e. (a) the actual pecuniary loss directly sustained i.e. the actual amount of pecuniary value of the property wrongfully detained; (b) indirect pecuniary loss, i.e. loss of profit, loss of credit, loss of reputation, loss of business, etc. etc.; (c) the value of time spent in establishing the right violated; (d) the actual expenses or costs of litigations at several places and several forums; (e) The mental sufferings, i.e. vexations, anxiety and worry; (f) the sense of wrong or insult felt by the plaintiff and his family members on account of the act and / or omission being done by the Defendants with malicious and deliberate intention and (g) compound interests at Bank rates for period from 28-11-92 till the date of filing money suit.

5. Contesting and refusing vehemently those allegations and contentions made by the plaintiffs, all the defendants including the St