CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER RAILWAY ELECTIFICATION Vs. AJI KURIEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the word the Government used in Section 73-A of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (10 of 1960), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would include the Central Government? If so whether the officers of the Railway also can claim benefit of the above Section treating them as officers of the Central Government while filing suits, appeals etc. on behalf of the Railways? These are the questions to be considered in this order. Section 73-A was inserted by Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act 2002 which provides that no court-fee is payable on suits, appeals, revisions etc. filed and presented on behalf of the Government before any Court under the provisions of the Act. Section 73-A of the Act is as follows : appeals, revision etc. filed by or on behalf of the Government before the Court. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, where a suit, appeal, revision, review or other pleadings or documents is filed or presented by or on behalf of the Government or its officers in their official capacity before any Court, no court-fee shall be chargeable in respect of such suit, appeal, revision, review or other pleadings or documents under the provisions of this Act." (Emphasis supplied)

(2.) These appeals were filed by the Chief Project Manager, Railway Electrification, Egmore, Chennai. It is the contention of the appellant that in view of Section 73-A of the Act no court-fee is payable by the appellants. The Registry raised an objection stating that in view of the decision of this Court in Kerala Water Authority v. O. Valsan, ILR (2003) 2 Ker 57 a statutory body or a local authority cannot get the benefit of the Act. According to the Senior Standing Counsel for the Railways, Railway cannot be equated to merely statutory body or local authority. It is department of the Central Government and it is part of Central Government itself as can be seen from the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989. Before considering the question whether railway administration can be termed as part of Central Government, first we may consider the question whether Central Government is included in the term Government used in the State Act. According to the Government Pleader appearing for the State, exemption under Section 73-A is applicable only to State Government and not to the Central Government and therefore even if Railway can be considered as part of Central Government, appeal cannot be filed without paying proper court-fee.

(3.) We may now consider the question whether the term the Government used in Section 73-A include Central Government. The Principal Act and the Amendment Act were passed by the Kerala Legislature and they are State Acts. The word the Government is not defined in the Act. It is the contention of the Standing Counsel for the Railways that in the absence of a definition of Government in the Act, guidance should be obtained from the General Clauses Act 1897. The General Clauses Act 1897 defines Government as follows :- 207 "Section 3. Definitions. In this Act, and in all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context: (23) Government or the Government shall include both the Central Government and any State Government; The word Government is not defined in the Act. It is not defined anywhere in the Constitution also. Of course under Article 12 of the Constitution, State includes Government and Parliament of India and the Government and Legislature of each of the States and all local and other bodies within the territory of India or under the control of India. But it is only for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. Section 3(23) of the General Clauses Act quoted above is an inclusive definition. The Allahabad High Court in Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Basti v. The Union of India, AIR 1974 All 125 considered the question. There the Stamp Act, a Central Act was amended by State Act. There the Court held that since the Stamp Act is a Central Act and even though that Act was amended by the State Act, Principal Act being a Central Act, definition in the General Clauses Act will apply in the absence of a specific definition in that Act and the term Government will include Central Government and State Government. It was also held by that Court that there is nothing in the context in which the expression Government finds a place in the relevant provision in Section 3 as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh which may include that it was intended to be used in a sense different from that defined under the General Clauses Act. But in this case the parent Act as well as the Amendment Act are State laws and not Central laws. As held by the Bombay High Court in Ram Pratap Jai Dayal v. Dominion of India, AIR 1953 Bombay 170 definition of Government in Section 2(23) does not apply to State laws. The first part of the definition itself shows that the General Clauses Act, 1897 is applicable only to Central Acts and Regulations and not to State Acts. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Railways relied on a Full Bench decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Asst. Director C.I,, v. Harnam Chand, AIR 1979 J & K 33. There the Court was considering the word Government used in Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. The Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act exempted houses leased to Government. The question was whether the term Government used in that Act would include the Central Government. The Full Bench held that the affairs of the State are run by both the State Government and also the Union Government and there is nothing in the definition to exclude the Union Government and when the term Government is used without any prefix and the intention of the Section was to exempt the house taken on rent for running the departments engaged in the admini stration, and in that context the term Government in Section l(3)(i) of the Act includes Union Government. On the basis of the above judgment it was contended that in this case also the term Government would include Central Government.