STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question involving the interpretation of Article 131 of the Constitution of India arises in this civil revision petition. The suit, S.C.S. No. 75 of 1976, Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, was instituted by the petitioner, the State of Tamil Nadu,against the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras, for recovery of damages in a sum of Rs. 1,588.71. According to the case of the petitioner, the consignment of 585 bags of wheat weighing 506.03 quintals was sent by the Regional Director of Food Corporation of India in November, 1967 to Tiruchirapalli under railway receipt No. 870954 dated 7th November, 1967. A shortage of 10 full bags weighing 25.90 quintals was noticed at the time of unloading, which was brought to the notice of the respondent. In answer to a claim made by the petitioner on 7th January, 1968, the respondent took up the position that the railway receipt was clear and unqualified about the loading and therefore, the alleged loss could not be made good. Ultimately, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent. Thereafter the petitioner, claiming that the respondent had been negligent and had not performed its duties diligently and with caution and that the loss would not have occurred, if proper steps had been taken by the respondent, sought to recover a sum of Rs. 1,588.71 against the respondent after issuing a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE respondent herein resisted the suit contending that the petitioner is not entitled to recover any compensation. An objection was also raised by the respondent that the suit is bad for non impleading of the Madras Port Trust Railway, which will be liable for the short delivery, if any. Inasmuch as the consignment was booked and despatched as bulk-load directly from the ship to wagon without the supervision of the railway staff, the alleged loss, if any, according to the respondent, was only on account of the short loading by the sender and therefore, the petitioner should seek its remedies only as against the sender. THE respondent further stated that due care and caution had been exercised and that there was no negligence or misconduct on its part. THE claim of the petitioner to recover the sum of Rs. 1,588.71 or any other sum was disputed. Equally, the respondent disputed the validity of the notice under section 78-B of the Indian Railways Act and section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A further plea that the claim was also barred by limitation was raised by the respondent.

(3.) IN this civil revision petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the interpretation put upon Article 131 of the Constitution of INdia by the lower Court is not correct and that the suit being one for recovery of damages in relation to loss of goods entrusted to the respondent herein for carriage, the suit was properly laid before the Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the view taken by the Court below is perfectly correct. Before proceeding to consider the merits of the rival contentions advanced it is necessary to refer to Article 131 of the Constitution of INdia. Article 131 of the Constitution of INdia reads thus: