Union of India v. State of Rajasthan — 1981 DIGILAW 388 (RAJ)

S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This is a revision by the Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi under Sec. 115, C.P.C. against the order dated April 16, 1981 of the District Judge, Balotra, by which, he decided issue No. 6 in favour of the plaintiff. 2. A few facts deserve recall here: The plaintiff State of Rajasthan through the District Rehabilitation Officer, Barmer instituted a suit for Rs. 1,57,825.80 p. against the defendant Union of India in the court of District Judge, Balotra on July 23, 1977. The District Administration of Barmer was in need of tents and, therefore, 170 bundles of tents and accessories were despatched by the Chief Commandant, Mana Shivir (Raipur), Madhya Pradesh to the Collector, Barmer through R.R. No. 423978 dated February 17, 1972. The tents and the accessories thereof were delivered to the Railway Administration for being sent to the Collector, Barmer. Certain letters and notices were sent to the railway administration for the delivery of the goods. Thereafter, an intimation was received from the Railway Administration on August 6, 1972 that the goods are then available at Barmer Railway Station. It is said that the Additional Collector and the District Rehabilitation Officer went to Barmer Railway Station on August 6, 1972 for taking the delivery but it was found that the packings of the goods have been seriously damaged and the tents as well as the accessories were completely soaked with water and they became unfit for the use. The delivery was not taken and a request was made to the Station Master for assessing the damages. The goods were auctioned and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was fatched in the auction. Ultimately, a notice under Sec. 80, C P.C. dated May 16, 1977 was sent to the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi claiming damages amounting to Rs. 1,57,825.80p. by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Barmer. As the payment was not made, the suit was filed as aforesaid. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant on various grounds by filing a written statement on February 16, 1978. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder on July 7, 1979. Issues were fromed on February 22, 1980. 1,57,825.80p. by the District Rehabilitation Officer, Barmer. As the payment was not made, the suit was filed as aforesaid. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant on various grounds by filing a written statement on February 16, 1978. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder on July 7, 1979. Issues were fromed on February 22, 1980. In this revision petition, I am only concerned wish issue No. 6, which, when translated into English, reads as under: "Whether the court cannot entertain the suit which is between the State and the Union of India ?" This issue covers the subject-matter of Art 131 of the Constitution. 4. The learned District Judge heard the arguments on this issue. By his order dated April 16, 1981, the learned District Judge decided it in favour of the plaintiff and held that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed this revision. 5. In pursuance of the show cause notice, appearance has been put in on behalf of the State of Rajasthan by Mr. Rajesh Balia, Deputy Government Advocate. Record has also been received. 6. I have heard Mr. A.K. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner (Union of India) and Mr. Rajesh Balia, Deputy Government Advocate on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. 7. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding on issue No, 6 and submitted that the dispute raised in the suit is between Union of India and the State of Rajasthan and as it is a suit for the recovery of the damages, it cannot be entertained and tried by the District Judge, Balotra, where it was instituted, for, in view of Art. 131 of the Constitution, the suit can only be tried by the Supreme Court to the exclusion of any other Court. In support of his argument, Mr. Mathur placed reliance on Kerala State vs. G.M.S. Rly. Madras(l), Govt. Medical Store vs. State of Haryana etc. (2), State of Bihar vs. Union of India (3), State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India (4), and Karnataka State vs. Union of India (5). 8. On the other hand, while supporting the order under revision, Mr. Mathur placed reliance on Kerala State vs. G.M.S. Rly. Madras(l), Govt. Medical Store vs. State of Haryana etc. (2), State of Bihar vs. Union of India (3), State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India (4), and Karnataka State vs. Union of India (5). 8. On the other hand, while supporting the order under revision, Mr. R. Balia, learned Deputy Government Advocate pressed from my consideration that the suit which was instituted by the State of Rajasthan against the Union of India does not relate to a dispute between the Government of India and the State of Rajasthan against and that having regard to the claim put forward by the State of Rajasthan in the suit, it cannot be said that the dispute involves any question whether of law or of fact on which the existence or extent of a legal rights depends. He referred to Union of India vs. State of Madras(6) and State of Karnataka vs. South Central Railway(7). He also referred to the three decisions of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, viz., State of Rajasthans case (4), State of Bihars case(3) and Karnataka States case (5), and submitted that even on the basis of these decisions, the suit filed by the State of Rajasthan is not exclusively triable by the Supreme Court and the learned District Judge was right when he said that it can be taken cognizance of by him. 9. I have given my most anxious and careful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Here, it will be useful to read the material portion of Art. 131 of the Constitution: "131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:— Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall to the exclusion of any other court have original jurisdiction in any dispute : (a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or (b)..... ......... (c)..... ........ if and in so far as the dispute involves any question whether of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. Provided. ....................................................". ......... (c)..... ........ if and in so far as the dispute involves any question whether of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. Provided. ....................................................". Amongst others, for the applicability of Art 131 of the Constitution, the following two conditions are to be satisfied so that any suit or dispute can be tried by the Supreme Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction: (i) the dispute must be between the Government of India and the State or States; and(ii) that dispute must involve the question whether of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. 11. The question that, therefore, arises is whether the dispute in the case on hand is within the purview of Art. 131 of the Constitution of India ? 12. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Bihars case (3), observed as under: "The most importent feature of Art. 131 is that it makes no mention of any party other than the Government 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 required to adjudicate upon the disputes in exactely the same way as ordinary courts of law are normally called upon to do for upholding the rights of the parties and enforcement of its orders and decisions. The words in the article "if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends" are words of limitation on the exercise of that jurisdiction. These words indicate that the disputes should be in respect of legal rights and not disputes of a political chartcter. Moreover, this Court is only concerned to give its decision on questions of law or of fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right claimed depends. Once the Court comes , to its conclusion on the cases presented by any disputants and gives its adjudication on the facts or the points of law raised, the function of this Court under Art. 131 is over. Once the Court comes , to its conclusion on the cases presented by any disputants and gives its adjudication on the facts or the points of law raised, the function of this Court under Art. 131 is over. Art. 131 does not prescribe that a suit must be filed in the Supreme Court for the complete adjudication of the dispute envisaged therein or the passing of a decree capable of execution in the ordinary way as decree of other courts are. It is open to an aggrieved party to present a petition to this Court containing a full statement of the relevant facts and praying for the declaration of its rights as against the other disputents. Once that is done, the function of this Court under Art. 131 is at an end." I may also quote from para 11 of the report : " Although Article 131 does not define the scope of the disputes which this Court may be called upon to determine in the same way as section 204 of the Government of India Act, and we do not find it necessary to do so, this much is certain that the legal right which is the subject of dispute must arise in the context of the constitution and the Federalism it sets up." In that case, the existence of the right was in question. Mr. Mathur has referred paras 107, 109 and 110 of the State of Rajasthans case (4), wherein the expression legal right as used in Art. 131 of the Constitution was considered, Goswami, J., in para 153 of the judgment observed as under : "Although the expression used in Art. 131 is any dispute, the width of the expression is limited by the words that follow in respect of the nature of dispute that can be entertained by this Court in its original jurisdiction. It is only a dispute which involves any question of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right of the contending party depends chat can be the subject-matter of a suit under Art. 131. The dispute should be in respect of legal rights and not disputed of political character. The Article, thus, refers to the parties that may be arrayed in the litigation as well as to the subject-matter of the dispute." He also noticed State of Bihars case (3). The dispute should be in respect of legal rights and not disputed of political character. The Article, thus, refers to the parties that may be arrayed in the litigation as well as to the subject-matter of the dispute." He also noticed State of Bihars case (3). In that case, Untwalia, J., in his separate judgment has stated as under: "To my mind, the dispute raised is between the Government of India and the Government or the Legislative Assembly of the Stales concerned. One or more limbs, namely, the Government, the Legislature or the Judiciary of a State cannot be equated with the State. Although the expression "legal right" occurring in Art. 131 embraces within its ambit not only the constitutional rights of the States but also other kinds of legal rights, the dispute must relate to the territory, property, or some other kind of legal right of the State " In Karnataka States case(5), the scope of Art. 131 of the Constitution was exam-iced Notification dated May 18, 1977 issued by the Karnataka State Government under s. 3(1) and Notification dated May 23, 197"? issued by the Central Government under same section related to the some matter within s 3(1) proviso (b), were challenged. It was held that the claim of the State clearly raised a dispute as to the extent of the power of the State and the existence of a superior or coordinate power in the Central Government to inquire into the conduct of the Chief Minister and other Ministers of the State in the discharge of their governmental functions. It was held that the suit was maintainable. 13. In the case in hand, the consignment of tents and accessaries thereof was delivered to the Railway Administration. It was damaged. The contention of the plaintiff is that there was negligence on the part of the Railway Adminis-tration as proper care was not taken and because of rains it soaked with water and, thus, damaged. The State of Rajasthan has sued the Union of India to recover damages from it. The important question is whether the suit for the recovery of damages instituted by the State of Rajasthan involved the existence or extent of the legal right as envisaged by Art. 131 of the Constitution. The right to recover damages is not disputed. The State of Rajasthan has sued the Union of India to recover damages from it. The important question is whether the suit for the recovery of damages instituted by the State of Rajasthan involved the existence or extent of the legal right as envisaged by Art. 131 of the Constitution. The right to recover damages is not disputed. If the negligence on the part of the Railway Administration is established for not taking care of the goods consigned then on proof, the Stale will be entitled to damages. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that in the suit for damages instituted by the State of Rajasthan, the question involved is regarding contract between the Railway Administration and the State. The right to recover damages arising out of the contract in the suit, in my opinion, cannot be said to relate to the existence or extent of the legal right as contemplated by Art. 131 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court had occasion in State of Karnatakas case(7) to examine the scope of Art. 131 of the Constitution. After relying on State of Bihars case (3), and distinguishing Kerala States case (1) and State of Kerala vs. General Manager, Southern Railway (8), he observed as under : "From the above enunciation it seems to me clear enough that the legal right contemplated under Art. 131 of the Constitution is one which is clearly relatable to a right flowing from the provisions of the Constitution, and not to any other." In that case, the suit was filed on behalf of the State of Karnataka for the recovery of damages for short delivery of wheat by the Southern Railway Administration which was a property of the Union of India, Among the pleas raised on behalf of the defendants, there was one appertaining to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain suits of the present nature. It was canvassed that the suits being between the State and the Union of India were only cognizable by the Supreme Court under Art. 131 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge held that the right sought to be enforced in that case arose from a contract between a carrier (the Railway) and a consignees (the State) and. therefore. Art. 131 of the Constitution is not attracted. The learned Judge held that the right sought to be enforced in that case arose from a contract between a carrier (the Railway) and a consignees (the State) and. therefore. Art. 131 of the Constitution is not attracted. I, respectfully, follow the view taken in State of Karnatakas case (8) I am of considered opinion that the legal right contemplated by Art. 131 of the Constitution is a limited right and that if there is any dispute between the State and the Union of India amerging out of the contractual obligations, such dispute will not fall under Art. 131 of the Constitution and as such, it will not be attracted. 14. Having held so, it has now, been necessitated for me to examine the State of Keralas case (1) on which strong reliance was placed by Mr. Mathur. In that case, the State of Kerala instituted a suit for recovery of damages for the short delivery of the goods consigned to the railways. The following is the only portion having hearing on the question which I have considered above : "The plaintiff has put in an application in this Court for impleading the Union of India as a party to the suit. We do not think that any useful purpose will be served by allowing this application. If the application is allowed and the Union of India made a party, the suit must be dismissed as under Art. 131 (a) of the Constitution of India a suit by one State against the Union of India can only lie in the Supreme Court of India. We, therefore, dismiss the petition." In that case, the words used in Art. 131 of the Constitution "if and in so far as the dispute involves any question whether of law or fact on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends", were not at all given due weightage. A perussl of para 9 of the report which has been quoted above, shows that the learned Judges did not record reasons in support of the conclusion that the suit by one State against Union of India can only lie in the Supreme Court. I, with profound respect, find myself unable to subscribe to the view taken in State of Keralas case (1). 15. I, with profound respect, find myself unable to subscribe to the view taken in State of Keralas case (1). 15. In view of the conclusion, to which I have arrived at, viz., that in the suit, dispute raised does not involve any question pertaining to fact or law on which the existence of the legal right depends, I do not consider it necessary to examine the contention of the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the suit by the State of Rajasthan against the Union of India cannot be said to be a dispute between the State of Rajasthan and the Government of India as envisaged under Art. 131 of the Constitution. 16. By deciding issue No. 6 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant holding that the District Judge, Balotra has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit for the recovery of damages, it cannot be said that the learned District Judge has exercised jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. 17. The order dated April 15, 1981 of the District Judge, Balotra calls for no interference by this Court, 18. The result is that this revision petition has no force and it in, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs.