HUBLI ELECTRICITY CO LTD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the Hubli Electricity Co. , Ltd. , against the Province of Bombay entitled "In the matter of the High Court Suit No. 610 of 1944 (The Hubli Electricity Co. , Ltd. v. The Province of Bombay), and in the matter of the order dated May 3, 1944, issued by the Secretary to Government by order of the Governor of Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939,-And In the matter of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. "

(2.) THE petition is distinctly unusual, and the only question before me at the moment is whether this is a proper form of proceeding. THE learned Advocate General on behalf of the Province of Bombay takes a preliminary objection that this is not the proper form of proceedings, and that is all I have to decide at the moment. I therefore assume, without deciding, that the statements contained in the petition are and that each of them is correct. But I desire to make it abundantly clear that I am not deciding anything of the sort. I am merely assuming that for the purpose of dealing with the preliminary objection before me.

(3.) THEN there are a number of grievances each one of which would be an admirable ground for filing a suit. Acts of trespass by the servants of Government are alleged, the seizure of a motor car belonging to the company and several other matters which on the face of them disclose a good cause of action in the company such as the alleged fact that some servants of the Government have forcibly seized the keys of all the cup-boards of the office and stores building. The only one thing which does not disclose a cause of action in the company is the allegation that they also forced the wife of the managing agent, during his absence, to vacate the company's staff quarters which they had occupied. No doubt this lady possessed all the virtues that one can be possessed of and she may be an excellent wife to the managing agent, but that does not make her the wife of the company, and even if she were the wife of the company, her being dispossessed of her quarters gives the company no right of action. However, as I say, the petition sets out a large number of matters all of which are excellent grounds for filing a suit.