STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. INDIAN UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 24 petitions can be disposed of by a common order as a common question of law has arisen in all of them. They are preferred by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Bagalkot, in Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 14, 19, 20, 21, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of 1973 and 2 to 14, 22, 30, and 31 of 1974, whereby the judgment of the Additional Munsiff at Bagalkot in Original Suits Nos. 78, 63, 65, 67, 11, 12, 13, 66, 71, 75, 79, 77, 81, 62, 68, 70, 76, 82; 74; 64; 9; 69; 8 and 10 of 1972 respectively stood affirmed.

(2.) The suits in point were filed by the State of Karnataka for recovery of damages for short delivery of wheat by the Southern Railway Administration which was a property of the Union of India. Among the defences raised on behalf of the defendants, there was one appertaining to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain suits of the present nature. The specific plea in that regard was that the suits, being between the State and the Union of India, were only cognizable by the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court upheld this plea of the defendants and directed the return of the plaints for presentation to the proper Court, The appeals filed by the State were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, principally following the observations in the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Kerala State vs. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras AIR 1965 Kerala 277, FB. . Hence these petitions.

(3.) On behalf of the State, the learned Second Additional Government Advocate, placing reliance on certain decisions of the Supreme Court, which I shall refer to later, contended that the enforceable 'legal right envisaged under Article 131 of the Constitution must be one which flows directly from the Constitution and not any other, and that the present suits were not concerned with any such rights. Sri H.G.Bala- krishna, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant-Railway Administration, contended that the decision relied on on behalf of the petitioner was clearly distinguishable in that the specific issue relative to article 131 of the Constitution, which had been noticed therein, had not been decided. He also invited attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court whereby the appeal against judgment of the Kerala High Court referred to and relied on by the Courts below, had been dismissed.