S D SHARMA Vs. THAKORLAL CHHAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A wholesale and retail merchant in foodgrains having his slop at Village Rankuva in Chikhli Taluka of Bulsar District was served with an order not to sell his goods (rice and paddy) valued at about Rs. 55 0 by an order passed by the Prant Officer of Navsari The merchant concerned was obliged to retain with him stocks of goods to the tune of Rs. 55 0 by virtue of this order which according to him was illegal and ultra vires. He accordingly instituted a suit for damages claiming a sum of Rs. 14526-10 on various counts against the Prant Officer (defendant No. 2) who passed the order. It appears that subsequently defendant No. 2 revoked the said order and passed an order releasing the stocks. This order of release was however counter-manded by the Collector of Bulsar on telephone. The said Collector was therefore impleaded as defendant No. 4 and damages were also claimed from him. Damages were also claimed from the State of Gujarat and the Mamlatdar of Bulsar who were arraigned as defendants Nos. 1 and 3 respectively. The learned Civil Judge (S. D.) at Navsari who tried this suit (Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1969) came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had established his claim only to the extent of Rs. 1650.00 against the Prant Officer and the Collector defendants Nos. 2 and 4 respectively and passed a decree against them by his judgment and order dated February 27 1970 Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree original defend- ants Nos. 2 and 4 have preferred the present First Appeal and have questioned the legality and validity of the decree passed by the trial Court.

(2.) The matter will have to be viewed from the individual standpoint of each of the two appellants for the facts and circumstances pertaining to the orders passed by them and the acts done by them are somewhat different. We propose to deal with the case of appellant No. 1 (Original defendant No. 2) in the first instance. On the ground that the plaintiff had committed breach of the provisions of the Gujarat Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1965 (Levy Order) and of the licence issued under the Gujarat Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order (Licensing Order) an order was passed against him by the defendant No. 2 on 29th June 1966 freezing his stock of rice (246. 21 quintals) and paddy (48 quintals). By this order passed by defendant No. 2 in his capacity as Prant Officer the plaintiff was commanded not to sell or dispose of the aforesaid goods valued by the plaintiff at about Rs. 55 0 as the same had been freezed till per mitted by him or by the Collector. This order was challenged in the High Court of Gujarat by way of Special Civil Application No. 1372 of 1966 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India When the matter came up for hearing on 2nd February 1967 the impugned order dated 29th June 1966 was withdrawn According to the plaintiff the impugned order dated 29 June 1966 was illegal ultra vires and without jurisdiction and defendant No. 2 is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for the loss caused to him by the aforesaid illegal order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has urged the following submissions in support of this appeal :