Judgment MITTER, J. ( 1 ) THIS group of applications can be divided into two parts. The object of one group is to get the plaints in nine suits filed in this courtrejected while that of the other group is to stay the hearing of the suits. Thesuits are all of the same pattern in each of which the State of Bihar figuresas the plaintiff. The Unoin of India is the first defendant in all of themwhile the second defendant in six is Hindustan Steel Ltd. and in threeothers the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. The cause of action in allthe suits is of the same nature. Briefly stated the plaintiffs case in all thesuits is that "due to the negligence or deliberate action of the servants ofboth defendants there was a short delivery of iron and steel materialordered by the plaintiff to various sites in the State of Bihar in connectionwith the construction work of the Gandak Project". As the goods werein all cases booked by rail for despatch to the project site, both defendantsare sought to be made liable for short delivery, the first defendant as theowner of the railways and the second defendant as the consignor of thegoods under contract with the State of Bihar for supply of the material. In each case there is a prayer for a decree for a specific sum of money tobe passed either against the first defendant "or alternatively against thesecond defendant". Normally all suits of this kind are instituted all overindia in different courts beginning from the courts of the lowestjurisdiction to the High court exercising original jurisdiction. The onlydistinguishing feature of this series of suits from others of everyday occurrence in different courts is that a State is the plaintiff in eachcase. In all suits of a similar nature which are filed in courts other thanthis court, a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is anessential pro-requisite. No such notice has been served in any of these cases. The applications were set down for trial of three issues sought to be raisedby way of preliminary issues. They are as follows :-1. Whether the alleged cause or causes of action in this suit arewithin the scope of Article 131 of the Constitution ?2. Whether this suit is within the scope of Article 131 of the Constitution in view of a non-state, viz. They are as follows :-1. Whether the alleged cause or causes of action in this suit arewithin the scope of Article 131 of the Constitution ?2. Whether this suit is within the scope of Article 131 of the Constitution in view of a non-state, viz. , defendant No. 2, having beenmade a party to the suit ?3. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 80 C. P. C. for want of notice to defendant No. 1 ? ( 2 ) THE question before this court is, whether the dispute in thesecases is within the purview of that article (quoted in the foot-note ). Itmust be noted that the article confers jurisdiction on this court to theexclusion of all other courts in any dispute between the parties motionedtherein. There is however an over-riding provision that such jurisdictionis subject to the provisions of the Constitution and our attention was drawnto a few of these provisions where the disputes specified are to be adjudicatedupon in entirely different manner. The most important feature of Article131 is that it makes no mention of any party other than the governmentarticle 131. Subject to the provisions (b) between the Government of of this Constitution, the Supreme india and any State or States court shall, to the exclusion of any on one side and one or more other court, have original other States on the other ; or jurisdiction in any dispute (f) between two or more States, (a) between the Government and if and in so far as the dispute involves one or more States ; or any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of into or executed before the commencement a legal right depends : of the Constitution, continues provided that the said jurisdiction in operation after such commencement, shall not extend to a dispute arising or which provides that out of any treaty, agreement, covenant, the said jurisdiction shall not extend engagement, sanad or other similar to such a dispute. instrument which, having been entered of India or any one or more of the States who can be arrayed as a disputant. The other distinguishing feature is that the court is not requiredto adjudicate upon the disputes in exactly the same way as ordinary courtsof law are normally called upon Co do for upholding the rights of theparties and enforcement of its orders and decisions. The other distinguishing feature is that the court is not requiredto adjudicate upon the disputes in exactly the same way as ordinary courtsof law are normally called upon Co do for upholding the rights of theparties and enforcement of its orders and decisions. The words in thearticle "if and in so for as the dispute involves any question (whether oflaw or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends"are words of limitation on the exercise of that jurisdiction. These wordsindicate that the disputes should be in respect of legal rights and notdisputes of a political character. Moreover this court is only concernedto give its decision on questions of law or of fact on which the existenceor extent of a legal right claimed depends. Once the court comes to itsconclusion on the cases presented by any disputants and gives its adjudication on the facts or the points of law raised, the function of this courtunder Article 131 is over. Article 131 does not prescribe that a suit mustbe filed in the Supreme court for complete adjudication of the disputeenvisaged therein or the passing of a decree capable of execution in theordinary way as decrees of other courts are. It is open to an aggrievedparty to present a petition to this court containing a full statement ofthe relevant facts and praying for the declaration of its rights as againstthe other disputants. Once that is does, the function of this court underarticle 131 is at an end . The framers of the Constitution do not appearto have contemplated the contingency of a party to an adjudication bythis court under Article 131 not complying with the declaration made. Our law is not without instances where a court may be called upon to makean adjudication of the rights of the parties to an agreement or an awardsimpliciter on the basis of such rights without passing a decree. A case inpoint is Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act. Further, all adjudicationsby a court of law even under a decree in a suit need not necessarily becapable of enforcement by way of execution. A case inpoint is Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act. Further, all adjudicationsby a court of law even under a decree in a suit need not necessarily becapable of enforcement by way of execution. Section 42 of the Specificrelief Act, 1877 now replacad by Section 34 of the new Act enablesa person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any propertyto institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny histitle to such character or right without asking for any further relief subjectto the limitations prescribed by the section. We need not however laymuch stress on this aspect of the case as we are only concerned to findout whether the suits can be entertained by this court. ( 3 ) CLAUSES (a), (b) and (c) of the article specify the parties who canappear as disputants before this court. Under clause (a) it is the government of India and one or more States ; under clause (b) it is the governmentof India and one or more States on one side and one or more other States onthe other, while under clause (c) the parties can be two or more States without the government of India being involved in the dispute. The specification of the parties is not of an inclusive kind. The express words of clauses (a), (b) and (c) exclude the idea of a private citizen, a firm or a corporationfiguring as disputant either alone or even along with a State or with thegovernment of India in the category of a party to the dispute. There is noscope for suggesting that a private citizen, a firm or a corporation can bearrayed as a party by itself on one side and one or more States including thegovernment of India on the other. Nor is there anything in the articlewhich suggests a claim being made by or preferred against a private partyjointly or in the alternative with a State or the government of India. Theframers of the Constitution appear not to have contemplated the case of adispute in which a private citizen, a firm or a corporation is in any wayinvolved as a fit subject for adjudication by this court under its exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction conferred by Article 131. ( 4 ) LIKE many of the provisions of our Constitution this article had afore-runner in the government of India Act, 1935. ( 4 ) LIKE many of the provisions of our Constitution this article had afore-runner in the government of India Act, 1935. Section 204 of that Actprovided for conferment of original jurisdiction on the Federal court ofindia. That section ran as follows :" (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Federal court -shall,to the exclusion of any other court, have an original jurisdiction in anydispute between any two or more of the following parties, that is to say,the Federation, any of the Provinces or any of the Federal States, if andin so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) onwhich the existence or extent of a legal right depends :provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to- (a) a dispute to which a State is a party, unless the dispute (i) concerns the interpretation of this Act or of an Order in councilmade thereunder, or the extent of the legislative or executive authorityvested in the Federation by virtue of the Instrument of Accession of thatstate; or (ii) arises under an agreement made under Part VI of this Act inrelation to the administration in that State of a law of the Federallegislature, or otherwise concerns some matter with respect to which thefederal Legislature has power to make laws for that State ; or (iii) arises under an agreement made after the establishment of thefederation, with the approval of His Majestys Representative for theexercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States,between that State and the Federation or a Province, being an agreement which expressly provides that the said jurisdiction shall extend tosuch a dispute;{b) a dispute arising under any agreement which expressly providesthat the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute. (2) The Federal court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shallnot pronounce any judgment other than a declaratory judgment. "clause (a) of the proviso to the section defined the categories of disputeswhich might be raised before the Federal court while clause (b) permitted theparties to provide for the exclusion of such jurisdiction in the agreement inrespect whereof the dispute arose. "clause (a) of the proviso to the section defined the categories of disputeswhich might be raised before the Federal court while clause (b) permitted theparties to provide for the exclusion of such jurisdiction in the agreement inrespect whereof the dispute arose. It will be noted that the scope of thedispute under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) was limited to the interpretation ofthe government of India Act or Order in council or to the extent of legislative or executive authority vested in the Federation while under sub-clause (i) the dispule had to relate to the administration in a State of a law of thefederal Legislature or otherwise concerned with some matter relating to thelegislative competency of the said Legislature. Under sub-clause (iii) thedispute could only be one under an agreement made after the establishmentof the Federation between the State and the Federation or a Province subjectto the condition therein specified. A dispute of the nature which is raisedin this series of a case was outside the ken of Section 204 of the governmentof India Act. ( 5 ) IT may not be out of place to trace the origin of Section 204. Theproceedings of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform, Session1933-34, Vol. I, Part II, Paragraph 309 read as follows :"a Federal court is an essential elements in a Federal Constitution. It is at once the interpreter and guardian of the Constitution and atribunal for the determination of disputes between the constituent unitsof the Federation. The establishment of a Federal court is part of thewhite Paper Scheme, and we approve genially the proposals with regardto it. We have, however, certain comments to make upon them, whichwe set out below. "the report of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform,session 1933-34, Vol. I, Part I contained two paragraphs bearing on thismatter. Paragraph 322 was a reproduction of paragraph 309 quoted above. Paragraph 324 ran as follows :"324. We have, however, certain comments to make upon them, whichwe set out below. "the report of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform,session 1933-34, Vol. I, Part I contained two paragraphs bearing on thismatter. Paragraph 322 was a reproduction of paragraph 309 quoted above. Paragraph 324 ran as follows :"324. It is proposed that the Federal court shall have an originaljurisdiction in- (i) any matter involving the interpretation of the Constitution Actor the determination of any rights or obligations arising thereunder,where the parties to the dispute are (a) the Federation and either aprovince or a State, or (b) two Provinces or two States, or a provinceand a State; (ii) any matter involving the interpretation of) or arising under, anyagreement entered into after the commencement of the Constitution Actbetween the Federation and a Federal Unit or between Federal Units,unless the agreement otherwise provides. This jurisdiction is to be an exclusive one, and in our opinionrightly so, since it would be altogether inappropriate if proceedings couldbe taken by one Unit of the Federation against another in the courts ofeither of them. For that reason we think that, where the parties arcunits of the Federation or the Federation ilself, the jurisdiction ought loinclude not only the interpretation of the Constitution Act, but also theinterpretation of Federal laws, by which we meant any laws enacted bythe Federal Legislature. "it is clear from the; above that the trainers of the government of Indiaact 1935 thought that the Federal court should be the tribunal for thedetermination of disputes between the constituent units of the Federationand it sought to lay down the exact nature of the dispute which that courtcould be called upon to examine and decide . ( 6 ) THE Constitutional Proposals of the Sapru Committee show thatthey had the said report and the said proceedings of the Committee intheir mind when they advocated the strengthening of the position of th (;federal court in India and widening its jurisdiction both on the originalside and the appellate side but maintaining at the same time that it should"act as an interpreter and guardian of the Constitution, arid as a tribunalfor the determination of disputes between the constituent units of the Federation. " ( 7 ) IT is also to be noted under Section 204 of the government of Indiaact, 1935 the Federal courts jurisdiction was limited to the pronouncementof a declaratory judgment. " ( 7 ) IT is also to be noted under Section 204 of the government of Indiaact, 1935 the Federal courts jurisdiction was limited to the pronouncementof a declaratory judgment. ( 8 ) ARTICLE 109 of the Draft Constitution of India prepared by theconstituent Assembly was in the same terms as Article 131 of the Constitution as it came into force in 1950. The proviso to the original article was substituted by the new proviso in the year 1956 as a result of the Seventh Amendmentby reason of the abolition of the part B States and the changes necessitatedthereby. Reference was made at the Bar in this connection to the Debates inthe Constituent Assembly, Vol. IV, 13/07/1947 to 21st July, 1947. Theyyhowever do not throw any additional light. ( 9 ) SO far as the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform and the report of the Committee on the same are concerned, they make it clear that the object of conferring exclusive original jurisdiction on the Federal court was that the disputes of the kinds specifiedbetween the Federation and the Provinces as the constituent units of tliefederation, should not be left to be decided by courts of law of a particular unit but be adjudictated upon only by the highest tribunal in the landwhich would be beyond the influence of any one constituent unit. ( 10 ) ALTHOUGH Article 131 does not defines the scope of the dispuleswhich this court may be called upon upon to determine in the same way assection 204 of the government of India Act, and we do not find it necessaryto do so this much is certain that tlie legal right which is the subject of disputemust arise in the context of the constitution and the Federalism it sets up. However, there can be no doubt that so far as the parties to the dispute areconcerned, the framers of the Constitution did inlend that they could onlybe the constituent units of the Union of India and the government of Indiaitself arrayed on one side or the other either singly or jointly with anotherunit or the government of India. ( 11 ) THERE is no decision either of the Federal court of India ur ofthis court which throws much light on the question belore us. ( 11 ) THERE is no decision either of the Federal court of India ur ofthis court which throws much light on the question belore us. Referencewas made at the Bar to the case of The United Provinces v. The governoreneralin council where the United Provinces filed a suit against the governor-General in council for a declaration that certain provisions of the Cantonments Act) 1924, were ultra vires the then Indian Legislature. A claim wasalso made that all fines imposed and realised by criminal courts for offencescommitted within the cantonment areas in the United Provinces ought to becredited to the provincial revenues and that the plaintiffs were entitled torecover and adjust all such sums wrongly credited to Cantonment Fundssince 1924. The governor-General in council contended inter alia that thedispute was not one which was justiciable before the Federal court. On thequestion of jurisdiction, Gwycr, C. J. was not inclined to think "that theplaintiffs would in any event have been entitled to the declarations for whichthey originally asked, in proceedings against the governor-General in council". According to the learned chief justice "their proper course wouldhave been to take proceedings against a named Cantonment Board, though. . such proceedings could not have been brought to this court. " He wasof the view that it was competent for the court to entertain a suit foradeclaration "that Section 106 of the Act of 1924 was ultra vires," and saidthat as the dispute between the parties depended upon the validity of theassertion of the Province to have the fines under discussion credited to provincial revenues and not to the Cantonment funds the dispute involved aquestion of the existence of a legal right. According to him the questionmight have been raised in proceedings to which a Cantonment Board was aparty but "it was convenient to all concerned that it should be disposed ofin the proceedings before the court. " ( 12 ) THE only other Indian case cited at the Bar in this connectionwas that of the State of Seraikella and others v. Union of India and Another wheremahajan, J. expressed the view that Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not affect suits instituted in the Federal court under Section204 of the Government of India Act. ( 13 ) OUR attention was drawn to some provisions of the Americanconstitution and of the Constitution Act of Australia and several decisionsbearing on the interpretation of provisions which are some what similar toarticle 131. But as the similarity is only limited, we do not propose to examine either the provisions referred to or the decisions to which our attention was drawn. In interpreting our Constitution we must not be guided bydecisions which do not bear upon provisions identical with those in ourconstitution. ( 14 ) THE Constitution makes special provisions for settlement of certaindisputes in a manner different from that laid down in Article 131. Forinstance. Article 143 gives an over-riding power to the President of Indiato consult the Supreme court when he is of the view that the question isof such a nature and of such public importance that it is expedient to doso. Under clause ( 1 ) of that Article the President is empowered to obtainthe opinion of the Supreme court upon any question of law or fact whichhas arisen or is likely to arise and is of such a nature and of such publicimportance that the President considers it expedient to obtain such opinion. In such a case the court after giving such hearing as it thinks fit has toreport to the President its opinion thereon. Clause (2) of the article showsthat this power of the President over-rides the proviso to Article 131. ( 15 ) ARTICLE 257 provides for control of the Union over the States incertain cases. Under clause (2) thereof the executive power of the Unionalso extends to the giving of directions to a State as to the construction andmaintenance of means of communication declared in the direction to beof national or military importance. Under clause (4) where such directionsare given and "costs have been incurred in excess of those which wouldhave been incurred in the discharge of the normal duties of the State ifsuch direction had not been given", the government of India must pay tothe State such sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as maybe determined by an arbitrator appointed by the chief justice of India, inrespect of the extra costs so incurred by the State. ( 16 ) AGAIN, when there is a dispute or complaint with regard to tlieuse, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river orriver valley clause (2) of Article 262 gives Parliament the power by law toprovide that neither the Supreme court nor any other court shall exercisejurisdiction in respect of such dispute or complaint as is referred to in clause (1 ). Such a law ousts the jurisdiction of the court which would normallybe attracted by Article 131. Article 290 contains aprovision somewhatsimilar to Article 257 (4) with regard to certain expenses and pensions andmakes the same determinable by an arbitrator to be appointed by tilechief Justice of India. ( 17 ) APART from these special provisions a dispute which falls withinthe ambit of Article 131 can only be determined in the forum mentionedtherein, namely, the Supreme court of India, provided there has not beenimpleaded in any said dispute any private party,. be it a citizen or a firm ora corporation along with a State either jointly or in the alternative. A dispute in which such a private party is involved must be brought before acourt, other than this court having jurisdiction over the matter. ( 18 ) LT was argued by counsel on behalf of the State of Bihar that sofar as the Hindustan Steel Limited. , is concerned it is state and the suitsin which the government of India along with Hindustan Steel Limited,have been impleaded are properly filed within Article 131 of the Constitutiontriable by this court in its original jurisdiction. Reference was made to thecase of Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal. There the questionarose between certain persons who were permanent employees of the government of the State of Rajasthan and later placed at the disposal of the Stateelectricity Board and one of the questions was whether the appellant Boardcould be held to be state as defined in Article 12. This court by a majorityheld that the Board was "other authority" within the meaning of Article12 and therefore was a state to which appropriate directions could begiven under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It will be noted thatunder Article 12 all local or other authorities within the territory of Indiaor under the control of the government of India are states for purposesof Part III which defines and deals with the Fundamental Rights enshrinedin the Constitution. It will be noted thatunder Article 12 all local or other authorities within the territory of Indiaor under the control of the government of India are states for purposesof Part III which defines and deals with the Fundamental Rights enshrinedin the Constitution. The expression "the State" has the same meaning inpart IV of the Constitution under Article 36. No reason was shown as towhy the enlarged definition of state given in Parts III and IV of the Constitution would be attracted to Article 131 of the Constitution and in ouropinion a body like the Hindustan Steel Limited cannot be considered lobe "a State" for the purpose of Article 131 of the Constitution. ( 19 ) IN the result we hold that the suits do not lie in this court underarticle 131 of the Constitution and issue No. 2 must be answered in thenegative. It is not necessary to give any answer to issue No. 1 nor to issueno. 3. On the view we take the plaints must be returned for the purposeof presentation to courts having jurisdiction over the disputes. Let theplaints be returned for presentation to the proper court after endorsing onthem the date of presentation of the plaints in this court and the date onwhich they were returned. We make no order as to costs of these applications.