UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJKUMAR RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition, against an order of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, raises an important question of law, with respect to the appointment of recognized agents, on behalf of the Central Government, for purposes of signing and verifying plaints and written statements, and acting in suits, instituted, against that Government in Himachal Pradesh, a Union territory. The determination of the question involves the consideration of Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and of the following two notifications : (1) Government of India, Ministry of Law, Notification No. S. R. O. 282 dated the 21st January, 1958.

(2.) THE circumstances giving rise to the aforesaid question of law may be set forth : Respondent No. 1 had filed a suit against the Central Government and others for a declaration and the issue of a perpetual injunction that he was the owner of a large tract of land, described in the plaint, and was entitled to cut and remove trees and other produce from the land and that the Central Government and the Government of Himachal Pradesh be restrained, by the issue of a perpetual injunction, from interfering, In any manner with his rights in the land, the trees and the produce. The suit was contested, on behalf of the Central Government and the Government of Himachal Pradesh. A joint written statement was filed. The written statement was signed and verified by the Secretary (Forests) to the Himachal Pradesh Government. The Secretary (Forests) had appointed Shri Prithvi Raj advocate as counsel for the Central Government. An application was put in, on behalf of respondent No. 1, questioning the competence of the Secretary (Forests) to sign and verify the written statement or to appoint counsel, on behalf of the Central Government. It was contended that the Secretary (Forests) had no authority to sign the written statement and to appoint counsel, on behalf of the Central Government and that as such there was no valid written statement and no valid appearance, on behalf of the Central Government. It was prayed that proceedings against the Central Government may he ordered to be ex parte. The application was opposed, on behalf of the Central Government. The contention of respondent No. 1 that the written statement and the appearance, put in, by the counsel, were not valid was repudiated. It was pleaded that the Lieutenant Governor (Administrator) Himachal Pradesh, who had been authorised, by the President, by the Notification dated the 21st January, 1958, to discharge the functions of the Central Government under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, had authorised, by the Notification dated the 21sl April, 1961, the Secretaries and other officers of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, mentioned therein, to sign and verify written statements and to act on behalf of the Central Government and that Secretary (Forests) was, therefore, competent to "sign the written statement and to appoint counsel on behalf of the Central Government

(3.) THE Central Government has come up in revision against the decision of the learned District Judge. It was contended, on its behalf, that the learned District Judge was in error in holding that the Notification dated the 21st January, 1958, had merely authorized the Administrator to sign pleadings and that the Notification dated the 21st April, 1961, amounted to delegation of powers by the Administrator and was invalid. It was pointed put that the plain meaning of the Notification dated the 21st January, 1958, was that the Administrator was authorized to discharge the functions of the Central Government under order XXVII, Code of Civil Procedure and that he function of the Central Government under Rule 1 of that Order was to appoint persons or signing pleadings on its behalf and not to sign pleadings itself. It was, further, pointed put that by virtue of the Notification dated the 21st January, 1968, the Administrator could appoint persons to sign pleadings on behalf of the Central Government under Rule 1, Order XXVII, Code of Civil Procedure and that the Notification dated the 21st April, 1961, was not ultra vires of the powers of the Administrator.