UNION OF INDIA Vs. INDRADEO KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant petitioner in this case is the Union of India representing the General Manager and the Chief Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. The plaintiffs opposite party have filed Title Suit 273 of 1960 in the court of the 1st Munsif at Muzaffarpur for a declaration 'that the plaintiffs are entitled to promotion in the cadre of the T. T. I. of the grade of Rs. 200/- to 300/- with effect from 22-3-57 as per recommendation of the competent authority, the then Regional Superintendent.....'. The plaintiffs filed a petition on the 12th of August, 1961 for a direction to the petitioner to file the documents mentioned in their petition. On the 20th September, 1961, an affidavit of Mr. B.M. Kaul, Chief Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, was filed stating ;

(2.) It seems to me that, even on the statement of Mr. Kaul in the second affidavit, he is not the head of department within the meaning of Section 123 of the Evidence Act, who could, by his affidavit, tell the court that the papers called for were the papers relating to the affairs of the State and it was not in the public interest to produce those papers in court. In State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, AIR 1961 SC 493, the grounds on which such privilege can be claimed, the scope and manner of enquiry by the court when such privilege is claimed and the manner how it should be claimed have been elaborately considered by the Supreme Court. Gajendragadkar, J., who delivered the judgment on behalf of himself and B.P. Sinha, C.J., and Wanchoo, J., has stated at page 504 (column 2) :

(3.) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice however, I think it is necessary that a fresh opportuniy should be given to the petitioner, if it is so advised, to put in the affidavit of the head of the department in the light of the observations made above, claiming privilege under Section 123 of the Evidence Act in accordance with the rules laid down and principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 493. On such affidavit being filed the court below will, if necessary, hold the limited enquiry within the scope of the limits prescribed by the Supreme Court decision aforesaid and then come to its conclusion afresh as to whether the privilege claimed can be allowed or not. I would like to add that, in the affidavits filed by Mr. Kaul, it has been stated that some of the documents called for by the plaintiffs 'do not appear to have been correctly specified'. The court below may give an opportunity to the plaintiffs opposite party to correctly specify the documents called for by giving such extra particulars as may be necessary to trace them out and the head of the Railway Department, who may file the affidavit, may take into consideration the extra particulars supplied by the plaintiffs for specifying the documents called for. The plaintiffs should be directed to specify the documents by giving more particulars within two weeks from the receipt of the record from this Court and thereafter three months' time should be allowed to the defendant to put In the affidavit of the head of the department, if it is so advised, in the light of the observations made above.