Judgement ORDER :- The petitioner was employed as a bulldozer operator under the Agricultural Department of Pondicherry. On 1st December 1971, he was levelling a land in survey No.31/1/2 of Sialam village of Mannadipeth Commoene in Villianur sub taluk belonging to one Thiru Warada Reddiar of Thirupuvannai. While he was operating the bulldozer, he found the following treasures in the said survey number :- 1. A bronze idol of Lord Natarajah (height 87 cm weight 60 Kgs.) 2. A bronze idol of Sivagami Amman (height 90 cm. weight 40 kgs). 3. A bronze idol of 'Iswaran' in sitting posture (height 51 cm. weight 53 kg.) 4. A bronze idol of 'Amman' in sitting posture (height 40 cm. weight 22 kgs.) 5. One broken bronze pedestal (weight 1.8 kg) 6. One Conch (weight 1.38 kg.) As the finder of the said articles and as enjoined by Section 4 of the Indian Treasure Trove Act (VI of 1878) hereinafter referred to as the Act, he informed the Sub Inspector of Police, Thirupavanai, and ultimately, the articles were entrusted to the Sub Inspector of Police to be sent to the treasury for safe custody. Thereafter, the Government of Pondieherry, the first respondent herein, made a notification in the Official Gazette dated 30th June 1972, under Section 5(a) of the Act. The owner of the land made a claim over the articles. However, his claim was negatived. His further agitation including writ proceedings did not prove fruitful. The articles were declared ownerless under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner has also been claiming the articles as the finder of the same under the Act. Admittedly, no further proceedings as contemplated under Section 10 onwards under the Act have been prosecuted by the authorities. The petitioner has been making repeated representations claiming the articles as the finder and ultimately he received the communication dated 18-7-1978 from the second respondent in reference No.16154/75 C.2 stating that the department to which the petitioner belongs (Agricultural department of Pondicherry) should be deemed to be the finder of the treasure trove since the discovery was made by the petitioner during the performance of his duties. It is this order of the second respondent that is being impugned in the present writ petition. 2. May be, at the time when the petitioner found the treasure he was under the employ of the Agricultural department of the Government of Pondicherry. It is this order of the second respondent that is being impugned in the present writ petition. 2. May be, at the time when the petitioner found the treasure he was under the employ of the Agricultural department of the Government of Pondicherry. The question is whether even though the petitioner was the actual finder of the treasure in question, merely because he was under the employ of the Agricultural department of the Government of Pondicherry, the latter must be the finder under the Act. The expression 'finder' is not defined in the Act. 3. In re Mala Naicker, 27 Mad LJ 477 : (AIR 1915 Mad 78(2)) Sadasiva Aiyar, J. dealt with a case of prosecution under Section 20 of the Act where the accused, two coolies working for hire under the eye of their employers turned up a box containing hidden treasure. The treasure was removed by the employers and the accused had no control over it at any time. Yet, the learned Judge held that the accused were finders within the meaning of the Act and they were liable for non-compliance with the other conditions imposed on them by Section 4 of the Act and were properly convicted. 4. In Trivenibai v. Emperor, AIR 1946 Nag 362, a woman knowing that a box containing ornaments belonging to her had been hidden by her husband in some well engaged labourers to dig the well with the expectation that the box would come out of the well. The well was dug and the box came out. The woman took possession of the box from the labourers as soon as it was found claiming it as her own. It was held that as far as the woman was concerned, the articles found were not 'hidden' and she was not a 'finder' as she was aware of the concealment of the ornaments; she was not, therefore, bound to give notice under Section 4 of the Act; and the labourer could, however, be technically said to be a 'finder' for the reason that he was ignorant of the presence of the box embedded in the well and he was, therefore, bound to give notice under Section 4 of the Act and his failure to do so made him liable under Section 20 of the Act. The learned Judge, Niyoji, J., in that decision, has taken into consideration the meanings of the two words 'finder' and 'find' as given in Oxford English Dictionary. The meaning of the word 'finder' is one who comes upon or discovers by chance or search', and the meaning of the word 'find' is 'to come upon by chance or in the course of events or to discover or attain by search or effort". 5. In Court of Wards v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1960 Punj 82 certain workmen were engaged by a P.W.D. contractor under the Punjab Government and in the course of the execution of the work under the contract, the workmen came across certain treasure. The Collector came to the conclusion that the treasure had been found by the workmen who were engaged in the construction work and not by the P.W.D. contractor and that the latter was not entitled, in any way, to claim any part of the treasure. This was upheld by the Court. 6. The principle deducible from the above decisions is that even though the actual finder is in the employ of another person and in the course of execution of works under such employment certain treasure is found, the person who actually discovers the treasure must be held to be the 'finder' within the meaning of the Act and not the person who employs the actual finder. The obvious reasoning is the employer is not the person who comes upon or discovers by chance the articles of treasure. The position would not stand altered merely because the employer happens to be any wing of the State. In the present case, admittedly, no claim was made by the Agricultural department of the Government of Pondicherry pursuant to the notice under Section 4 of the Act. If this is so, by virtue of Section 6 of the Act, any such right claimed by such department will stand forfeited. In view of this position it is not possible to countenance the stand taken by the respondent in the impugned communication dated 18-7-1978. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed quashing the communication of the second respondent dated 18-7-1978, in reference No.16154/75-C. 2. In view of this position it is not possible to countenance the stand taken by the respondent in the impugned communication dated 18-7-1978. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed quashing the communication of the second respondent dated 18-7-1978, in reference No.16154/75-C. 2. Since the authorities have not followed further step as contemplated under the Act, after the declaration under Sec.9, it is open to them to do so and consider the claims of the petitioner in such proceedings as expeditiously as possible. There will be no order as to costs in this writ petition.