Judgement ORDER :- Petition by the plaintiff in O. S. 427 of 1967 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Tenkasi, to revise the order on I. A. 1147 of 1969 in the said suit. The petitioner filed the suit for himself and as representative of the pattadars of Koravarkulam tank in Kambaneri Pathukudi village, for an injunction restraining the first defendant, the State of Madras, from diverting the water flowing through the supply channel leading from sluice No. 8 in the Papankal into the Koravarkulam tank by the construction of a dividing dam or otherwise. He filed I. A. 1147 of 1969 in the lower court to summon the file N. Dis A. 3. 8503/50. The Secretary to the Government of Madras, Public Works Department, filed an affidavit claiming privilege on the ground that the file contained unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the State, the disclosure of which will be prejudicial to public interests. It is also stated that the file contains official communications between the Government of Madras and Travancore in respect of the distribution of water in Papparkal, office notes, and other inter-departmental communications made in official confidence between the subordinate officials and their superiors. 2. The learned District Munsif of Tenkasi has upheld the objection of the first defendant claiming privilege under Section 123 of the Evidence Act and dismissed the application. 3. I called for the file and looked into the same. Pages 1 to 1 (g) contain only notes of office and they are not relevant. Pages 1 to 4 contain reference H.2660/50.1 dated 29-5-1950 by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and a copy of the correspondence between the Government of Travancore and the Government of Madras with regard to the request of the Travancore Government to put up a permanent dividing dam across the Velladhai to feed the Thondamankulam tank. The claim for privilege in respect of the correspondence is fully justified and it is upheld. 4. The subsequent documents in the file do not contain any correspondence between the Travancore state and the Madras State. There is an office copy of the report sent by the Collector of Tirunelveli to the Secretary to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Board of Revenue, Madras, making suggestions as regards the proposed dam asked for by the Travancore State. 4. The subsequent documents in the file do not contain any correspondence between the Travancore state and the Madras State. There is an office copy of the report sent by the Collector of Tirunelveli to the Secretary to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Board of Revenue, Madras, making suggestions as regards the proposed dam asked for by the Travancore State. The other records in the file relate only to inspection notes and reports made by several officers of the Government of Madras and the statements recorded from village officers and others. These records refer to the three branch channels from sluice No. 8 of Pappankal, one of them feeding Kuravankulam tank. There are also statements in these records supporting the claim of the petitioner that the channel is a supply channel of Kuravankulam tank. How the petitioner can prove the said statements is not a matter to be considered at this stage. The only question to be considered is whether these reports by the subordinate officials and statements recorded could be prevented from being used by allowing the first respondent to claim privilege under Section 123 of the Evidence Act. 5. The legal position as regards claim for such privilege has been clearly dealt with in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, 1961-2 Mad LJ (SC) 203 at pp. 242 and 243 : ( AIR 1961 SC 493 ). 5. The legal position as regards claim for such privilege has been clearly dealt with in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, 1961-2 Mad LJ (SC) 203 at pp. 242 and 243 : ( AIR 1961 SC 493 ). The following relevant rules have been extracted from the decision of the Judicial Committee in Robinson's case, 1931 AC 704 : "(1) the privilege is a narrow one most sparingly to be exercised; (2) the principle of the rule is concerned for public interest and the rule will accordingly be applied no further than the attainment of that object requires; (3) as the protection is claimed on the broad principles of state policy and public convenience, the papers protected, as might have been expected, have usually been public official documents of a political or administrative character; (4) its foundation is that the information cannot be disclosed without injury to the public interests and not that the documents are confidential or official which alone is no reason for their non-production; (5) even in the case of documents relating to the trading, commercial of contractual activities of the State, it is conceivable that there may be some plain overruling principle of public interest concerned which cannot be disregarded; though in times of peace such cases must be very rare." The following negative and positive tests laid down by the House of Lords in Duncan's case, 1942 AC 624 for deciding the question of privilege of the State have also been referred to in the above Supreme Court decision : "The negative tests are : (1) it is not a sufficient ground that the documents are State documents or official or marked confidential; (2) it would not be a good ground that, if they were produced, the consequences might involve the department or the Government in parliamentary discussion or in public criticism, or might necessitate the attendance as witnesses or otherwise of officials who have pressing duties elsewhere; (3) neither would it be good ground that production might tend to expose a want of efficiency in the administration or tend to lay the department open to claim of compensation. The positive test is, whether the public interest would otherwise be damnified, for example, where disclosure would be injurious to national defence, or to good diplomatic relations, or where the practice of keeping a class of documents secret is necessary for the proper functioning of the public service". 6. In the Supreme Court decision it is pointed out that under Section 162 of the Evidence Act the court has the overriding power to disallow a claim for privilege; but it is pointed out that the court will exercise its discretionary power only in exceptional circumstances when public interest demands, that is, when the public interest served by the disclosure clearly outweighs that served by the non-disclosure. 7. It is clear from what I have already stated that the statement recorded and the reports made by the Subordinate officials relate to the riparian rights of ryots in the ayacut irrigated by water flowing from the eighth sluice of Pappankal. The lands for which the Travancore State wanted a dam to be put up are also now part of the Madras State. Hence the fact that the correspondence started on a request made by the Travancore Government for putting up a dam cannot also lead to the inference that the reports and the statements dealt with inter-State matters. Such a file would have been made available for being used as evidence if the entire ayacut is within the State of Madras. The fact that some of the lands lower down the ayacut were once in the Travancore State is no ground for allowing the claim of privilege. For the foregoing reasons I am unable to uphold the claim of privilege made by the first respondent, except as regards the correspondence between the two States contained in pages 1 to 4. The privilege in respect of the rest of the file cannot be upheld. It is open to the petitioner to use such part of the statements in the file other than pages 1 to 4 as is relevant for the disposal of the case subject to his proving the same. The civil revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.