RAGHAVAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant sought leave to sue as an indigent person. He was unsuccessful. Relief was declined, not because he was not indigent but because the court below thought 'that a suit to enforce such a claim is not maintainable'. Presumably, the court below had R.5(d) or (f) of O.33 CPC in view.

(2.) THE appellant was called for an interview on 14-7-1981 for the post of an Excise Guard after qualifying in the written test and physical fitness test. THE interview card reached him at 4 p. m. on that day, by which time the interview was over. THE appellant says, he lost his last chance to secure a job. He avers gross negligence on the part of the Post Office which received the card on 6-7-1981 but delivered it only nine days later, on 14-7-1981. He wanted to sue for damages. THE Union of India opposed the application relying on S.6 of Indian Post Office Act, 1898 which exempts the Government of India from liability by reason of loss or misdelivery. THE Section is in these terms:

(3.) WHETHER the Section aforesaid requires change is for the policy makers to decide. May be there are considerations that stand against exonerating Government from tortuous liability. May be change is not called for, because Billions of letters are carried by the Post and if loss would attract actions, Government would find itself faced with a spate of actions.