GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. PABBISETTY SUBBARAMAIAH SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think these appeals will have to be allowed on a short point of law. What has happened in these cases was that the consignee instituted two suits against the Government for damages alleging inter aha that he had consigned some bags of rice from a certain station to Hindupur station. The Tahsildar without having any authority seized these rice bags. A criminal complaint was thereafter filed. The matter however ultimately came before the High Court and the High Court held the seizure illegal. As the seizure was illegal and the plaintiff suffered loss on account of this illegal seizure and as there was some shortage also, the consignee claimed damages from the Government.

(2.) The defence of the State Government was that the Tahsildar acted bona fide, that he was not negligent and that the present suit is barred under Section 16 of the Essential Supplies Act.

(3.) The trial court, after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the plaintiffs suits finding that there was shortage of 21 bags in one case and 22 bags in another case. The trial court also allowed interest upon the damages allowed to the plaintiff