LAWS(MAD)-1971-2-63

MUHAMMED YUSUFF Vs. STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS

Decided On February 19, 1971
Muhammed Yusuff Appellant
V/S
State Of Madras And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition by the plaintiff in O. S. 427 of 1967 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Tenkasi, to revise the order on I. A. 1147 of 1969 in the said suit. The petitioner filed the suit for himself and as representative of the pattadars of Koravarkulam tank in Kambaneri Pathukudi village, for an injunction restraining the first defendant, the State of Madras, from diverting the water flowing through the supply channel leading from sluice No. 8 in the Papankal into the Koravarkulam tank by the construction of a dividing dam or otherwise. He filed I. A. 1147 of 1969 in the lower court to summon the file N. Dis A. 3. 8503/50. The Secretary to the Government of Madras, Public Works Department, filed an affidavit claiming privilege on the ground that the file contained unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the State, the disclosure of which will be prejudicial to public interests. It is also stated that the file contains official communications between the Government of Madras and Travancore in respect of the distribution of water in Papparkal, office notes, and other inter-departmental communications made in official confidence between the subordinate officials and their superiors.

(2.) The learned District Munsif of Tenkasi has upheld the objection of the first defendant claiming privilege under Section 123 of the Evidence Act and dismissed the application.

(3.) I called for the file and looked into the same. Pages 1 to 1 (g) contain only notes of office and they are not relevant. Pages 1 to 4 contain reference H.2660/50.1 dated 29-5-1950 by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and a copy of the correspondence between the Government of Travancore and the Government of Madras with regard to the request of the Travancore Government to put up a permanent dividing dam across the Velladhai to feed the Thondamankulam tank. The claim for privilege in respect of the correspondence is fully justified and it is upheld.