STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. THE suit is one for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,520.45 as damages from the respondent. THE case of the plaintiff is that 270 bags of Milow were intended to be delivered for Dharmapuri District but the Railway Administration has delivered only 267 bags of Milow and that too in a damaged condition. Calculating the damage for short delivery and also the damages caused to the delivered goods, a sum of Rs.3,520.45 is claimed by the plaintiff as damages. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondent/defendant stating that in view of the provision contained in Article .131 of the Constitution the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Following the decision reported in State of Kerala v. THE General Manager Southern Railway, (1977)1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 65- (1977)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 65= (1977)1 S.C.R.419= (1977)1 S.C.J.290= (1976)4 S.C.C.265= A.I.R.1976 S.C.2538, the trial Court held that the suit is not maintainable. On appeal, the lower appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is as against these judgments and decrees the present Second Appeal has been filed.

(2.) MR. S.Krishnaswami, Government Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/ appellant submitted that the view taken by the courts below is erroneous and that Article 131 of the Constitution is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In support of this contention, the learned counsel cited the decision reported in The State of Tamil Nadu v. The Union of India represented by the General Manager , Southern Railway, Madras (1980)2 M.L.J.327. In this decision, Ratnam, J. applying the principles laid down in State of Karna-taka v. Union of India, (1977)4 S.C.C. 608= (1978)2 S.C.J.190= (1978)2 S.C.R.1: A.I.R.1978 S.C.68 held that what has to be seen in order to determine the applicability in the context of the Constitution, whether there is any immunity qua the parties to the dispute and that if there is, the suit would be maintainable but not otherwise. Considering the facts in the particular case, the learned Judge held that it is clear that Article 131 of the Constitution does not stand attracted at all.