THAKORELAL CHATURBHUJ DALAI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Broach in Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1952 dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for damages against the State of Bombay. The plaintiffs claimed damages on the plea that the Rationing Officer. Broach, passed an order on 17-11-1948 freezing and requisitioning certain stock of wheat in the plaintiffs' custody and the District Magistrate passed an order dated 18-1-1949, that the stock of wheat be sold at the price (fixed by the order) which was below the market value of wheat, and that those orders were illegal and ultra vires. The learned trial Judge held that the orders were ultra vires the District Magistrate, but in his view the plaintiffs had no cause of action because die-stocks of wheat and in respect of which the plaintiffs claimed damages did not belong to them.

(2.) THE facts which give rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and one Hiralal Thakorlal Dalai were carrying on business in groceries at Broach in the name and style of Messrs. Hiralal Thakorlal Dalai. Hiralal died having made a will whereby he appointed three persons, who were impleaded in this suit as plaintiffs Nos. 3, 4 and 5, as executors. On 8-11-1948 one) Jayantilal Parsotamdas Dalai of Dholka sent a consignment of 150 bags of wheat to Messrs. Hiralal Thakorlal Dalai at Broach to be sold by the latter firm as commission agents and as pakka adatias. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that out of the 150 bags of wheat. 114 belonged to Jayantilal Parsotamdas and the remaining 36 bags belonged to one Chhota-lal Chakubhai of Bavla. On 17-11-1948 when the stocks of wheat were in the custody of the firm of Hiralal Thakorlal Dalai and order was issued by the Rationing Officer, Broach purporting to act under the orders of the District Magistrate, directing that firm not to dispose of 98 bags of wheat without permit from a competent authority. On 3rd January 1949, the District Magistrate, Broach, purporting to exercise authority under the Bombay Essential Commodities ("regulation of Disposal and Acquisition) Order, 1947 directed the firm of Hiralal Thakorlal Dalai to sell and deliver to the godown manager. Broach, these 98 bags of wheat at the rate of Rs. 18 per Bengal maund. The District Magistrate also ordered that the price realised may be retained "in deposit. " The firm of Hiralal Thakorlal Dalai failed to comply with the order and. therefore, the bags were seized and taken possession of by the Rationing Officer, Broach on 18-1-1949. It appears that the owner Jayantilal Parsotam of Dholka was prosecuted for exporting wheat from the Ahmedabad District to Broach in violation of a ban imposed by the Provincial Government prohibiting export of wheat from the Ahmedabad District. The trial Court convicted the accused Jayantilal Porsotam, but in the Court of Session his appeal was allowed and he was acquitted. It appears that in those proceedings, it was ordered that the wheat which had been attached should be handed over to Jayantilal Parsotam. On 8-10-1951 the plaintiffs, who are the surviving partners of the firm of Hiralal Thakorlal Dalai and the executors under the will of the partner Hiralal Thakorlal, served a notice upon the State of Bombay claiming Rs. 8,824 as damages and Rs. 1,544 as interest thereon. The State of Bombay having failed to comply with the demand, on 15-1-1952 Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1952 was filed for a decree for Rs. 10,868 as damages for conversion of the plaintiffs' goods and interest thereon. The learned trial Judge was of the view that the order passed by the District Magistrate ordering sale of the goods and the subsequent seizure, of {he, goods was illegal and the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain an action for damages; but on the view that the plaintiffs had not suffered any loss by virtue of the wrongful action of the District Magistrate the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed.

(3.) IN this appeal, the principal question which falls to be determined is whether the order of the District Magistrate was "ultra vires and illegal" as contended by the plaintiffs. In order to appreciate that contention it may be necessary to refer to certain legislative provisions.