TATA TEA LIMITED Vs. B V P RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/defendants in. TS No. 192/97 pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. division) No. 1, Guwahati, having failed to get the plaint of the suit returned under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, from the learned trial Court as per order dated 22.7.2002 has approached this Court by filing this petition under Article 227 read with Sections 115/151, CPC, challenging the same.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff brought a civil action against the petitioners/defendants praying for a declaratory decree that the respondents/defendants have caused injury and damage to the reputation of the plaintiff and for realization of a sum of Rs. 1 crore as damages for such loss of reputation from the petitioners/defendants.

(3.) The case as pleaded by the plaintiff, inter alia, is that he is a member of the Indian Administrative Service and during the relevant time he was serving as the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Power, Mines and Minerals; that the plaintiff was a member of Indian Equestrian Team (Tent Pegging) from 1985 to 1990; that he was appointed as OSD in the Sports Authority of India in the year 1985 to 1990; that he has built up a good reputation in the field of sports; that he served as District Magistrate, Jorhat in the year 1990 during which period his service was greatly recognized by the armed forces. It is further pleaded that from early 1994 upto June 1996, the plaintiff was posted as the Home Secretary of the State of Assam and has built up an extraordinary reputation as an outstanding officer. It is also pleaded that the defendant No. 1 is a company of high repute having twenty three tea gardens in various States and considered to be a leader in the tea industry; that due to series of events in the month of September, 1997, the defendant No. 1 had to face police investigation on its alleged involvement with the banned militant organization in the State and the said investigations are still continuing; that a news item published in "The Sentinel" in its issue dated 20.9.97 under the caption "TTL has contact with Paresh" disclosing that the defendant company is maintaining regular contact with ULFA, particularly, with its Commander-in-Chief which was published over 100 leading news papers of the country publishing its purported version seeking to justify its actions which is under investigation of police and evoked strong reaction amongst the people. It is further pleaded that in the said press release it was mentioned that a copy of the letter dated 4.1.96 from the defendant company to ULFA has been released to the press highlighting that prior to issuance of the said letter dated 4.1.96, the defendant company met the Home Secretary of Assam and has sought protection and help to deal with the threat but no assistance or help was provided and the copy of the said letter was also sent to the State Government and the Government of Assam is fully aware of the said letter dated 4.1.96 of the company to the ULFA. Further pleaded case of the plaintiff is that news item was published in "The Economic Times" in its issue dated 26.9.97 under the heading "Tata Tea kept Assam Govt. updated on Ulfa, reveals letter" wherein it is stated that it is evident from the letter of TATA Tea to the plaintiff dated 9.1.96 that immediately after the company received ULFA's letter dated 18.12.95, two company officials met the plaintiff and handed over a copy of the said letter and sought protection and help from the Government. It is also pleaded that the defendant company through its press release by making a statement took stand that the defendants having received the said letter dated 18.12.95 from the banned organization immediately on the next date two officials of the company met the Home Secretary of the State of Assam on 19.12.95 and requested him for arrangement of necessary protection and security but there was no response from the plaiintiff. Thereafter, the company having received several phone calls from the banned organization they wrote a letter to ULFA on 4.1.96 that it is not possible for the company to accede to their request by providing the articles they sought for, etc. and vide letter dated 9.1.96, the plaintiff was requested to make arrangement for tightening of the security but the plaintiff neither responded nor reacted in any manner and remained silent and did not take any action. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff understood that on the basis of such stands of the defendant company they seek to sustain an inference of inaction and even tacit approval on the part of the plaintiff to the acts and omissions on the part of the company which is now under investigation.