Judgment :- 1. The second appeal arises out of a suit for damages against the State of Kerala, which was decreed in part by the trial court but dismissed by the lower appellate court. The plaintiff, who thus failed to get a decree before the lower appellate court, has come up in second appeal. 2. The appellant got down 660 bags of wheat from Bombay, of which we are concerned in the second appeal with only 100 bags, though the suit related to 160 bags. The 100 bass were received in Cochin; and the appellant informed the Collector on 27th November 1957 about their arrival. The Collector by his letter dated 7th December asked the appellant to furnish particulars, so that he might fix the selling price of the wheat; and the appellant furnished the necessary papers on 31st December 1957. Thereafter, there was no reply from the Collector; and the appellant wrote to the Collector on 3rd March 1958 under registered post. On 11th March the Collector issued orders distributing the 100 bags of wheat to his nominees at the sale price fixed by him. But, till 15th March none turned up to take delivery. On 15th March the appellant again informed the Collector that in case none turned up to take delivery, the wheat would be disposed of in the local market. Since there was no reply, the appellant had again to write to the Collector on 9th April 1958. The Collector then wanted to ascertain what portion of the 100 bags was still fit for human consumption; and the appellant replied that but for three bags, the wheat was unfit for human consumption. Ultimately, they had to be sold on 31st May 1958; and the suit was for the difference between the sale price and the price paid by the appellant. 3. Both the courts have found that damage was caused to the appellant due to the negligence of the officers of the State. On that question there cannot be any serious dispute either. The trial court raised three issues, of which the following two are the material ones: (1) what, if any, are the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled? (2) whether the delay was caused by the failure of the plaintiff to furnish particulars? On both these issues the Munsiff found in favour of the appellant; and a decree was also granted. (2) whether the delay was caused by the failure of the plaintiff to furnish particulars? On both these issues the Munsiff found in favour of the appellant; and a decree was also granted. On appeal as already stated, the Subordinate Judge also agreed with the findings on these issues. But, he held that the State was not liable in damages, because the act which caused the damage was in the nature of a sovereign act, for which the State was not liable in tort. Thus, the only question for consideration in the second appeal is whether this conclusion of the Subordinate Judge is correct. 4. The reasoning of the Subordinate Judge is that the control of sale and distribution of wheat by the State is in public interest; that there is no profit motive; and that therefore, there is no vicarious liability on the State for the tortuous acts of its officers. 5. In a Welfare State the State's activities are so broad-based that every aspect of human life comes within their scope for control and regulation. The State also undertakes trade, commerce, transport and similar activities. Merely because the activities of the State are in the interest of the public, it cannot be said that the State will not be liable for the tortuous acts of its officers. The activities of a Welfare State are not merely confined to maintenance of law and order (vide, in this connection, State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati AIR. 1962 S. C. 933.) 6. I do not however propose to enter into an elaborate discussion of the question; nor do I propose to refer to the several decisions on the question. To me it appears that a reference to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in M/ s. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR. 1965 S. C. 1039, will conclude the matter. To me it appears that a reference to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in M/ s. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR. 1965 S. C. 1039, will conclude the matter. In that ruling Gajendragadkar C. J. who speaks for the Court, observes that the significance and importance of making a distinction between acts committed by the servants employed by the State where such acts are referable to the exercise of sovereign powers delegated to them and acts committed by public servants which are not referable to the delegation of any sovereign powers have to be realised particularly at the present time when, in pursuit of their welfare ideal, the Governments of the States as well as the Government of India naturally and legitimately enter into many commercial and other undertakings and activities which have no relation with the traditional concept of Governmental activities in which the exercise of sovereign power is involved. The learned Chief Justice observes further that it is necessary to limit the area of these affairs of the State in relation to the exercise of sovereign power, so that if acts are committed by Government employees in relation to other activities which may be conveniently described as non-Governmental or non-sovereign, citizens who have a cause of action for damages should not be precluded from making their claim against the State. From this it is clear that the sovereign activities of the State have to be confined to the traditional concept of Governmental activities and should not be enlarged to embrace all acts of a Welfare State like ours. I even venture to think that courts should lean in favour of restricting the field of such activities rather than enlarging it. 7. It will emerge clearly from the above discussion that the act (really, the negligence) of the Collector which was responsible for the damage to the appellant was not within the traditional field of Governmental activities. The State is therefore liable in damages. I may add that the idea of profit for the Government should not be the guiding factor in a case like this, as the Subordinate Judge thinks. It is possible to conceive of a case where the Government purchases the entire grain stock from producers and sells it to consumers at a loss. The State is therefore liable in damages. I may add that the idea of profit for the Government should not be the guiding factor in a case like this, as the Subordinate Judge thinks. It is possible to conceive of a case where the Government purchases the entire grain stock from producers and sells it to consumers at a loss. Still, it cannot be said that the sale is a governmental activity or a sovereign act. 8. In the result, the second appeal is allowed; the decision of the lower appellate court is set aside; and the decision of the trial court is restored. The appellant will get proportionate costs throughout. Allowed.