Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner despatched four bundles of dry fish by the Southern Railway represented by the respondent, on the 18th December, 1960, from Vallikkunnu, a railway station in the State of Kerala, to Sagara, a railway station in the State of Mysore, under Way-bill, Ext. A-1. By mistake, the petitioner despatched the Way-bill to a wrong address in Shimoga and it was returned to him un-served. The petitioner then directed his agent at Sagara to take delivery of the goods; but in the meantime, the Station Master at Sagara, had sold the goods in public auction on the 19th January, 1961, and the petitioner's agent could not take delivery. The petitioner thereupon instituted this suit against the respondent for damages for conversion. The suit was dismissed by the Munsiff, who held that the goods have been validly sold by the Station Master, Sagara, under R.7 (e) of the 'Rules for warehousing and retention of goods' framed under S.47 (1) (f) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. The contention of the petitioner in revision is, that the sale was unauthorised and invalid and therefore the respondent is liable. 2. The goods consigned being dry fish, are of course perishable goods. Exts. B-3 and B-4 are two communications dated the 11th January, 1961 and the 17th January, 1961 addressed by the Station Master, Sagara to the Station Master, Vallikunnu, which described the condition of the goods at the time by the code word 'Kismet' meaning, as dw. 2 has stated, "emitting foul smell". dw. 2 has also sworn that water was oozing from the bundles which is clearly indicative of an advanced state of decay and deterioration. R.7 (e) which was applied by the Munsiff reads as follows: 7 (e). Perishable articles unclaimed or not taken delivery of, will be disposed of by auction at owner's risk and expense by the Station-master of the station at which they may be left after the expiry of 24 hours or earlier if they are, or are likely to become, offensive." Though in his judgment, the Munsiff did not say in so many terms, that the goods had become 'offensive', it is quite clear from the discussion in it, that he was definitely of the view that the goods had become offensive, within the meaning of the rule. 3. 3. What was contended for the petitioner by learned counsel was, that the above rule has no validity, because the power of sale is conferred by S.56 of the Act, and this case does not fall within its ambit. That section consists of two parts and reads as follows: "56 (1) When any animals or goods have come into the possession of railway administration for carriage or otherwise and are not claimed by the owner or other person appearing to the railway administration to be entitled thereto, the railway administration shall, if such owner or person is known, cause a notice to be served upon him, requiring him to remove animals or goods. (2) If such owner or person is not known, or the notice cannot be served upon him or he does not comply with the requisition in the notice, the railway administration may within a reasonable time, subject to the provisions of any other enactment for the time being in force, sell the animals or goods as nearly as may be under the provisions of the last foregoing section, rendering the surplus, if any, of the proceeds of the sale to any person entitled thereto". Referring as this does to the previous section, sub-sections (1) and (2) of the latter, viz., S.55, may also be extracted: "55 (1) If a person fails to pay on demand made by or on behalf of a railway administration any rate, or other charge due from him in respect of any animals or goods, the railway administration may detain the whole or any of the animals or goods or, if they have been removed from the railway, any other animals or goods of such person then being in or thereafter coming into its possession. (2) When any animals or goods have been detained under sub-section (1), the railway administration may sell by public auction, in the case of perishable goods at once, and in the case of other goods or of animals on the expiration of at least fifteen days' notice of the intended auction, published in one or more of the local newspapers, or where there are no such newspapers, in such manner as the Central Government may prescribe, sufficient of such animals or goods to produce a sum equal to the charge, and all expenses of such detention, notice and sale, including, in the case of animals, the expenses of the feeding, watering and tending thereof. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended on the terms of S.56(1) & (2), that before a right of sale could accrue, the railway administration must comply with certain conditions, that is to say, if the owner of the goods or other person appearing to the administration to be entitled to them is known, a notice has to be served upon him requiring him to remove the goods. It is only when such owner or person is not known, or the notice cannot be served upon him or he does not comply with the requisition in the notice, that the railway administration can proceed to sell the goods. The sale has to be held in the manner prescribed by S.55(2). The period of 15 days' notice of the intended sale, which is to be by auction, may however be dispensed with in the case of perishable goods. The address of the petitioner, the consignor, was known to the railway administration, in the sense, that it was known to the Station Master at Vallikkunnu, if not to the Station Master at Sagara. The notice of sale Ext. A-2 dated the 16th January, 1961 was received by the petitioner only on the 20th January, 1961, a day after the sale, in other words, the sale took place without notice to the petitioner. So stated, the argument appears to be plausible and to be consistent with S.56. The Madras High Court held in G. P. Venkataraman and Co, v. Union of India, owning Eastern Railways and another, A. I. R.1958 Madras 321, that the right to sell goods, even though perishable, accrued only on the fulfilment of the condition. 5. So stated, the argument appears to be plausible and to be consistent with S.56. The Madras High Court held in G. P. Venkataraman and Co, v. Union of India, owning Eastern Railways and another, A. I. R.1958 Madras 321, that the right to sell goods, even though perishable, accrued only on the fulfilment of the condition. 5. But the sale that has taken place in the present case, was not of perishable goods simpliciter, but was of goods which were "offensive". S.56 was not enacted to meet such a situation. R.7(e) was not framed in implementation of S.56 or of S.55; it was framed under S.47(1)(f), which, at the material time provided that, "Every Railway Company and in the case of a Railway administered by the Government, an officer to be appointed by the Central Government in this behalf shall make general rules consistent with this Act for the following purposes, namely, (f) for regulating the terms and conditions on which the railway administration will warehouse or retain goods at any station on behalf of the consignee or owner". R.7(e) occurs under the sub-heading, "Treatment and disposal of unclaimed booked goods and parcels". There can be no question, that quite apart from S.55 and 56, rules can be framed under S.47(1)(f), providing for the terms and conditions on which goods may be warehoused or retained. Such rules may also provide inter alia, for the warehousing of goods during the period of one month, during which time the notice prescribed by S.56(1) may be issued. If in the meantime, goods which are or may be warehoused, have become or are likely to become "offensive", the rules may provide for the disposal of such goods. Offensive goods are not to be detained in the warehouse until the formalities in S.55 and 56 are completed, endangering public health or safety. Accordingly, R.7(e) is framed, under which perishable articles, un-claimed or not taken delivery of, are to be disposed of, if they are, or are likely to become, offensive, at any time after the expiry of twenty four hours after they are left at the railway station, or even earlier, as the situation demands. R.7(e) is in no way touched by the provisions for sale in S.55 and by S.56, which do not relate to goods which have become or are likely to become offensive. R.7(e) is in no way touched by the provisions for sale in S.55 and by S.56, which do not relate to goods which have become or are likely to become offensive. We hold that R.7(e) is intra vires and consistent with the Act and that the sale of the goods concerned in this case, was valid. The claim for damages for conversion is unsustainable, and the petitioner can be given a decree, only for the balance of the sale proceeds after meeting the expenses and other charges due to the respondent. The amount realised at the sale was Rs. 100, and deducting the amount of Rs. 40 20 due to the respondent, before the lower court the respondent had stated its willingness to pay the balance. 6. In the result, in modification of the decree of the Munsiff dismissing the suit, the petitioner is hereby given a decree for Rs. 59.80 against the respondent, with interest thereon at 4 % per annum from the 9th September, 1963, the date of decree passed by the Munsiff. In the nature of the contentions raised, we direct the parties to bear their costs in this Court.