UNION OF INDIA Vs. SAT PAL DHARM VIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the frist appeal against the decree passed by the Sub Judge Rajouri dated 30 -4 -1966 whereby he has passed a decree for Rs. 4,999/ - and costs in favour of the plaintiffs against the Union of India. The facts giving rise to this suit are as under : -

(2.) THE plaintiff is a firm which carries on business in village Cumbhir Tehsil Rajouri. They had ordered some bales of cloth from Amritsar, which were lying with M/s Suraj Transport Company. On 23.6.1960, while the goods were in transit with the transport company, they were seized by the land Customs Authorities as it was suspected that these goods were going to be smuggled to Pakistan. A show came memo was issued to the plaintiffs by the Assistant Collector Land Custom Central Revenue Amritsar why action should not be taken u/s 7 of the Land Customs Act read with section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act by confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. The goods were worth Rs. 4,.324/5/3. In pursuance of the show cause notice on 16 -6 -1961 the goods were confiscated by the Assistant Collector Land Customs and a penalty of Rs. 500/ -was imposed on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs went in appeal and revision even upto the Ministry of Finance and the last order was passed by the Ministry of Finance against the plaintiffs on 15 -12 -1962. According to the plaintiffs the goods were illegally and maliciously seized. There was no question of the goods being smuggled to Pakistan. The plaintiffs had a bona fide business concern at Cumbhir. The plaintiffs claim Rs 4,999/ - claiming refund of Rs. 4,324/5/3 as the price of the goods plus a penalty of Rs 500/ - recovered from them and expenditure of Rs. 1300 incurred by the plaintiffs in defending the action before the Customs authorities. The plaintiffs gave up the amount in excess of the amount claimed. The suit was brought against the Union of India, The defence on behalf of the defendant was that no such suit lies in a Civil Court. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction. No notice u/s 8O C, P. Code was given. The Court at Rajouri had no jurisdiction. The Land Customs authorities had every reason to believe that the good were being smuggled to Pakistan. The plaintiffs had committed such acts of smuggling before also for which they had been punished ; so on and so forth. A complete narration of the defence is nor necessary. The Sub Judge who heard the suit initially framed the following issues : -

(3.) THE Sub Judge however, found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and therefore dismissed the suit on 25 -4 -1964. An appeal was preferred before this court against the order of dismissal and a Division Bench of this court by means of its order dated 26 -4 -1965 set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court for trial of the remaining issues. The Sub Judge who dismissed the suit was succeeded by another Sub Judge at Rajouri, The Successor Sub Judge recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately decreed the suit by means of his under appeal dated 30 -4 -1966. (4) When this Appeal came up for arguments last year ; the learned counsel appearing for appellant wanted to add one more ground to his memo of appeal to the effect that Union of India was not liable for the acts of its officers committed by them in the discharge of statutory functions which were ultimately based on the delegation of soveriegn power of the State to such public servants. Further that the Custom authorities were protected under the Judicial Officers Protection Act for this action of theirs, if it was held to be illegal.