GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY Vs. ISWARLAL PURUSOTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1, being the Union of India represented by the General Manager of the South Eastern Railway, is the appellant against a reversing judgment of the learned District Judge of Bolangir in suit for recovery of Rs. 3640 representing the price of 364 bags of Mudhi which, according to the plaintiff, had been delivered to the Railway at Kantabanjhi Railway Station on 16-7-59 for the purposes of onward transmission to Nasik.

(2.) BY 1959 there was restriction on movement of Mudhi, a preparation from rice, out of the State of Orissa. The plaintiff-firm obtained necessary permit for exporting Mudhi out of the State of Orissa to the State of Maharashtra and indented two wagons for the purpose on 29-6-59. Two wagons being Nos. 69668 n. R. and 52789 C. R. were allotted to the plaintiff valid upto 16-7-59. The wagons were supplied at 5 p. m. on 16-7-59 at the relevant place for loading. 864 bags were loaded in wagon No. 52789 and 316 in wagon No. 69668. This loading was completed by 6 P. M. on 16-7-59. The wagons were also duly sealed on that date. The railway staff at Kantabanjhi, however, instead of issuing the railway receipt to the plaintiff on 16-7-59 immediately after the loading was over, asked the plaintiff to come on the following day for the purpose. When the plaintiff approached for the Railway receipt on the next morning they demanded payment of illegal gratification as a condition precedent to issue of the railway receipts. The plaintiff intimated this fact to the Special Police Establishment on 18-7-59. The Station master of the Kantabanjhi Railway Station called upon the plaintiff to unload the goods as the validity of the permit had already expired on 16-7-59. When the plaintiff did not unload the consignment the defendants unloaded the same on 18/7/59. They did not take due care of the stock and the plaintiff lost 364 bags of mudhi. In the circumstances, he sued the Railway Administration for recovery of the price of the said 364 bags at the rate of Rs. 10 per bag.

(3.) THE defence taken was that the wagons were supplied on 16-7-59, but they were not fully loaded by 6 P. M. that day. The plaintiff again commenced loading at 6 A. M. on 17-7-59 and by the time the loading was over it was found that the life of the permit held by the plaintiff had already expired. Immediately thereafter the plaintiff was called upon to unload the bags or have the permit immediately extended. As the plaintiff failed to obtain extension of the permit and also failed to take back the bags from the wagons, the unloading was done by the defendants. The Mudhi was not removed from the station premises in spite of notice, and was ultimately sold by auction on 16-11-59 for a price of Rs. 732, In the circumstances, it was contended by the defendants who happened to be the railway Administration represented by the General Manager, the Assistant Goods clerk, the Goods clerk and the Station Master respectively that the suit was liable to be dismissed.