PROTAPMULL RAMESWAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of money instituted by the plaintiffs who carried on the business of cloth dealers at Malda under the name and style of Binapani Bastralaya, alias Mangilal Dharamchand, Malda, against the Province of West Bengal (defendant No. 1) and Pratapmull Rameswar, a firm, of Calcutta, who were the authorised dealers or handling agents appointed by. the Government of Bengal for textiles during the year 1945 (defendant No. 2). The plaintiffs stated that during this year they received certain bales of cloth from the Sub-divisional Officer, Malda, to whom they were consigned by Pratabmull Rameswar, on payment to the said Sub-divisional Officer of the price thereof together with the commercial sales tax payable thereon and that the amount so paid was ultimately received by Pratapmull Rameswar. Subsequently the Commercial Tax Officer of Malda levied sales tax separately for the self-same goods and realised the same as the plaintiffs were registered dealers and in this way the plaintiffs had to pay the sales tax twice on the same goods. The total amount so paid to the Sub-divisional Officer of Malda was Rs. 7,516|9 as., on account of the invoices mentioned in Schedule A of the plaint. The plaintiffs claimed refund of the said amount from the Government and also from Pratapmull Rameswar, but the same was not refunded to them by either. They also made certain excess payments for the bales of cloth received by them, some of which were found to be short in weight, amounting to Rs. 547|5 as., and paid another sum of Rs. 259]1 a for railway freight which was payable by Pratapmull Rameswar but was realised from them by the Sub-divisional Officer of Malda. They claimed refund of these amounts also, the total amount claimed under all heads being Rs. 8,322|15|6, as set out fat Schedule B of the plaint. It was further stated by the plaintiffs that Pratapmull Rameswar had request the Sub-divisional Officer of Malda to pay this amount to them from the money which Pratapmull Rameswar had in deposit with the Sub-divisional Officer, but that in spite of that the amount was not paid. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree in the first instance against the Province of West Bengal together with damages, and, in the alternative, in the event of it being proved that Pratapmull Rameswar had no deposit with the Government and was alone liable to pay the amount, the plaintiffs prayed that a decree might be passed against them. The suit was contested by both the defendants. The defence of the Province of West Bengal, so far us is material for our present purpose, vas that there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and the Government and that the Sub-divisional Officer. Malda, was neither the agent of the Government, nor was "authorised by the Government, to represent them, in the transactions mentioned in the plaint. It was explained in paragraph 8 of the written statement that cloth being a controlled commodity at the relevant time, it was decided by the Government that the wholesale cloth dealers in the district would receive the railway invoices through the Sub-divisional Officer and that to ensure prompt payment to the handling agent it was also arranged that the price of the goods would be paid by the wholesalers, to the Sub-divisional officer who would merely transmit the money to the handling agent. It was claimed that the Sub-divisional Officer's function in the matter was similar to that of a post office, and it was pleaded that if any amount had been overcharged and consequently overpaid by the plaintiffs, the handling agent who had received the amount was liable for the same.

(2.) The defence of Pratapmull Ramewar was a denial, of liability on the grounds that they had had no business dealing with the plaintiffs and that there was never any agreement between them for payment of any sum whatsoever. They stated that as the handling agent for the Government they had supplied the bales of cloth to the Sub-divisional officer, Malda, under instruction of the Government and tinder a running account maintained in the name of the Sub-divisional Officer and that all moneys due from the Sub-divisional Officer to them or due to the Sub-divisional Officer from them were adjusted in the said account. So far as the amount claimed by the plaintiffs was concerned, Pratapmull Rameswar stated that they had been cleared by credit in the said account and that the Sub-divisional Officer had been informed of the same and instructed to pay the amount to the party to whom it was due.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Government had no liability for the amount claimed and was not a necessary party to the suit, as the Sub-divisional Officer merely controlled the allotment and distribution of cloth as between the handling agent and the wholesale dealers and acted as a mediator between them. He found, however, that dependent No. 2 was liable for the amount claimed by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit against the said defendant with costs and dismissed it against the Province of West Bengal with costs.