UNION OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The precise question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether a suit filed by the State of Rajasthan against the Union of India for recovery of compensation for loss on account of the damage caused to the goods despatched through the Indian Railways in a Civil Court at Rajasthan is maintainable or whether it should be filed in this Court under Art. 131 of the Constitution.

(2.) The facts of the case are these. The District Administrator of Barmer in Rajasthan was in need of a certain number of tents and their accessories and at his request 170 bundles of tents and their accessories were despatched by the Chief Commandant, Mana Shivir (Raipur), Madhya Pradesh to the Collector. Barmer through the Indian Railways under R. R. No. 423978 dated Feb. 17, 1972 to be delivered at Barmer. No intimation was received about the arrival of the consignment at Barmer till Aug. 6, 1972. On hearing that the consignment had reached Barmer on August 6, 1972, the Additional Collector and the District Rehabilitation Officer went to Barmer on Aug. 6, 1972 for taking delivery but it was found that the packings of the goods had been seriously damaged and as a consequence thereof the tents as well as the accessories had become unfit for use. The delivery was not, therefore, taken and a request was made for assessing the damages. The goods were auctioned and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was fetched in the auction. Since the claim of the consignee was not settled by the Railway Administration, after issuing necessary notice to the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi, a suit was filed by the State of Rajasthan through the District Rehabilitation Officer. Barmer claiming damages amounting to Rs. 1,57,825.80 against the Union of India in the Court of the District Judge, Balotra on July 23, 1977. The suit was contested by the Union of India and the Railway Administration on various grounds and one of them was that the suit was not maintainable in the District Court in view of Article 131 of the Constitution which according to them conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to decide all disputes arising between a State and the Union. The 6th issue framed in the suit related to the competence of the District Court to entertain the said suit. The above issue was heard as a preliminary issue and the District Judge held by his order dated April 16, 1981 that he had jurisdiction to try the suit. Against the order of the District Judge a revision petition was filed before the High Court of Rajasthan and that petition came to be dismissed on Sept. 2, 1981. This petition for Special Leave is preferred under Art. 136 of the Constitution against the order of the High Court.

(3.) After the case was heard for some time, the learned Additional Solicitor General very fairly stated that the suit could be allowed to be proceeded with before the District Court. Since the question was of importance and that every suit instituted by any State Government against the Railway Administration may give rise to a similar issue, we propose to dispose of this Special Leave Petition with our reasons.