C GURUSAMY KONAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in A.S. No. 63 of 1955 reversing a thoroughly ill-considered judgment of the learned District Munsif of Kumbakonam in O.S. No. 46 of 1954. The case for the plaintiff is : He is a paddy and rice merchant in Papanasam having his branches at Saliyamangalam and also at Sathur in Ramnad District. In the course of business he has to transport rice and paddy from one branch to another. THIS he had to do after obtaining necessary permits from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Papanasam. He made one such application on 26th October, 1953, for transporting 150 bags of rice from Saliyamangalam to Sathur. The permit was refused illegally by the officer. Representations to the District Commercial Tax Officer were of no avail. At the time when the application was made, the price of rice was Rs. 45 per bag. On 12th November, 1953, when a permit was issued to him the price of paddy went down to Rs. 35 per bag. In this manner the plaintiff has suffered loss of Rs. 1, 500 which he would have got as profit had he transported the 150 bags in time to Sathur. On these allegations, the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 1, 535-4-0 against the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Tanjore.

(2.) THE case for the defendant is : On a reference made by the Board of Revenue, the Government apprehended that there was evasion of payment of sales Tax due to the Government by merchants exporting clandestinely large stocks of paddy and rice without exhibiting the transactions in their accounts. THEy therefore sent a letter No. 97398 N/52-5 (Revenue Department) dated 10th August, 1953, to the Chief Operating Superintendent, Southern Railway, Madras, that paddy or rice should not be booked from any station unless the consignor produced permit issued by the Commercial Tax Officer as proof of payment of sales tax on the turnover of the goods. THEy also directed the Board of Revenue to take immediate action to prescribe the export permits to be produced by the exporting merchants and to issue suitable instructions to the District Supply Officers and the Commercial Tax Officers in the matter. In pursuance of that the Board of Revenue issued the reference No. 112722 A-2 of 53 C.S. dated 28th August, 1953, directing that in the case of movement of rice and paddy of over 15 maunds the Commercial Tax Officer should issue a certificate in the form appended to it so that the merchant might produce it before the railway authorities along with the food grains licence or the exemption certificates. THE contents of the certificates are that sales tax on the quantity sought to be transported had been paid and that therefore the transport of the goods was certified. In this case, the officer authorised to issue permit was the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Papanasam. When the plaintiff applied to him on the 28th October, 1953, for a permit he in good faith in the course of the execution of duties and of the discharge of his functions thought that the circular requiring issue of a permit did not apply to this case because it did not involve payment of sales tax and he informed the plaintiff accordingly. THE plaintiff wrote to the Commercial Tax Officer complaining about the refusal. He directed the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to issue the permit.

(3.) THE law regarding misperformance of quasi-judicial powers by administrative officers as contra-distinguished from judicial officers protected by the Judicial Officers Protection Act (Act 18 of 1850) is the same in England, United States of America and India, and has been fully discussed in Thangavelu Mudaliar v. V. N. Manickam (S.A. No. 1030 of 1956) by me and can be gathered from the following standard treatises : Kameswara Rao "Laws of Damages and Compensation", 2nd Edn., Ch. 31, pp. 1002 and the following S. Ramaswami Iyer, "THE Law of Torts", 5th Edn., pp. 676-678 Harper's Law of Torts, U.S.A., p. 666 and the following Restatement of the Law of Trot, Vol. IV, Division Eleven, Ch. 42, p. 395 and the following, U.S.A. Clark and Lindsell on Torts, 11th Edn., p. 164, U.K.THE Government is not responsible for the misfeasance or negligence or omission of duty of the subordinate officers or agents in the public service. It does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of any of the officers or agents whom it employs since that would involve it in all its operations, in endless embarrassment and difficulties and losses which would be subversive of the public interest Story on Agency, S. 319. THEse principles were applied by the Privy Council when they said that acts of a Government Officers bind the Government only when he is acting in the discharge of a certain duty within the limits of his authority, or if he exceeded that authority when the Government in fact or in law directly or by implication ratified the excess : THE Collector of Masulipatam v. Cavaly Venkata Narainappa (8 M.I.A. 529 at 524) See also Gurucharan Kaur v. Province of Madras 1944 AIR(FC) 41 affirming 1942 AIR(Mad) 539), Mani v. State of Madras 1957 AIR(Mad) 190), Gopal Singh v. Union of India 1957 AIR(Raj) 17), Mohammad v. Government of U.P. 1956 AIR(All) 75), Venkappa v. Devamma (69 L.W. 526 1956 (2) MLJ 207 1956 AIR(Mad) 616), State v. Thakkar Vallabhadas 1956 AIR(Sau) 65).