RAM LALL MISTRY Vs. RTGREER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the defendant has, acting under the provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897, destroyed the property of the plaintiff. I need to now consider the facts of the case, but three points of law have been raised before me.

(2.) In the first place, is the defendant protected under Section 4 of the Act, which provides in the ordinary form that, "no suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything done, or in good faith intended to be done, under this Act." The defendant is the Chairman of the Calcutta Corporation, and consequently under the rules framed under the Act, he is the Magistrate, who is to enforce them. See Rule 2, Plague Regulation A, dated 8th October 1900, in the Calcutta Gazette, 17 October 1900, page 1144.

(3.) It is plain that the provision in Section 4 of the Act is intended in the first place to protect a person in the defendant's position against liability for irregularities that may occur in the proper performance of his duties under the Act, e.g., the demolition of a but under Rule 14, though disinfection could in fact have been satisfactorily effected otherwise. On any reasonable construction of the Act he is also entitled to a similar protection against any omission in the performance of such a duty, e.g., an omission to take steps for the safe- guarding of property in the hut, or the protection, of the public, which it would be his duty to take, if he were proceeding in a more leisurely way.