JUDGMENT : R. Pongiappan, J. 1. The unsuccessful defendant (second defendant) in O.S. No. 90 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. 1, Tuticorin, is the appellant. 2. The first respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 102 of 2000, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, against the appellant and the second respondent, to pass a decree for Rs. 8,98,152/- in favour of him together with future interest at 12% p.a. from the date of plaint with cost of the suit. The said suit was transferred to the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. I, Tuticorin and the same was renumbered as O.S. No. 90 of 2004. 3. It is the case of the first respondent before the Trial Court that due to the illegal cancellation order, passed by the appellant, the first respondent sustained the loss of Rs. 8,98,152/-. By Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2006, the learned Additional District Judge, FTC-I, Tuticorin, directed the appellant to pay Rs. 6,28,599/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as damages to the first respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant is before this Court, seeking the relief to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated 09.11.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, FTC-I, Tuticorin. 4. The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows: (i) The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff was the consignee of 646 bales of Pakistan Raw Cotton under B/L No. KHI-TUT-002 dated 15.12.1999 from Karachi Port. He is the High Seas purchaser under Agreement dated 29.12.1999. The said consignment arrived at Tuticorin port on 06.01.2000. After observing all formalities and payment of custom duties, delivery was ordered to the plaintiff on 10.01.2000. (ii) On account of the strike in Tuticorin Port, the plaintiff could not be in a position to take delivery of goods, which is beyond its control. Further, delivery was refused and was cancelled on 21.01.2000 by the second defendant, by proceedings dated 21.01.2000, under Ref. No. F-3-25/00-T, on account of Notification of the first defendant dated 11.01.2000, to the effect that there shall be no import of any cotton seeds of exotic origin of dried leaves and their stalks in the imported consignment carry exotic stain of destructive bacterial, viral and fungal diseases which are virulent under Indian climatic conditions. No. F-3-25/00-T, on account of Notification of the first defendant dated 11.01.2000, to the effect that there shall be no import of any cotton seeds of exotic origin of dried leaves and their stalks in the imported consignment carry exotic stain of destructive bacterial, viral and fungal diseases which are virulent under Indian climatic conditions. In respect of the said goods, Government of Pakistan had also issued phytosanitary/Health Certificate under Certificate No. 081 dated 21.12.1999. (iii) On account of the untenable and illegal cancellation of delivery of goods to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is put to heavy loss and damages. The alleged notification dated 11.01.2000 comes into effect on 11.01.2000. But, the imported goods from the Pakistan had arrived at Tuticorin on 06.01.2000. All the formalities have been complied with before 11.01.2000. The untenable and illegal cancellation delivery of goods to the plaintiff can be seen from the Office Memorandum No. 8-96/99-PP dated 14.03.2000 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural & Co-operation. This memorandum says that the imported cotton goods, which have been shipped and arrived at India, prior to the Notification dated 11.01.2000, can be exempted and allowed to be consumed by the concerned Textile Industry. (iv) As the delivery was stopped due to illegal cancellation by the defendants, the plaintiff has no other option except to find foreign buyer and the plaintiff was forced to sell the goods to Thailand and the goods were shipped from Tuticorin Port to Bangkok, on 23.02.2000 as the L/C was opened on 24.02.2000 itself under Invoice No. 001 dated 03.03.2000. (v) Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay loss and damages. Further, the defendants are liable to pay difference of amount between the purchase and sale price, demurrage, freight charges for re-export to Thailand. Accordingly, along with interest, the defendants are liable to pay Rs. 8,98,152/- for recovering the same from the defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit. 5. The averments made in the written statement filed by the second defendant, which was adopted by the first defendant, read as follows: (i) The name and address of the importer is mentioned as M/s. Kotak Ginning & Processing Ind. Pvt. Ltd., Navasari Building, 240 Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai and therefore, the plaintiff has to strictly prove that whether he has locus-standi to file this case. (ii) The Bill of Lading number is KHI/TUT/002 dated .12.1999. Pvt. Ltd., Navasari Building, 240 Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai and therefore, the plaintiff has to strictly prove that whether he has locus-standi to file this case. (ii) The Bill of Lading number is KHI/TUT/002 dated .12.1999. The application for inspection/fumigation was submitted in this office on 11.01.2000 and after carrying out necessary formalities, the consignment was recommended for release on 12.01.2000 only. Then, the recommendation for release was cancelled on 21.01.2000 as per the Gazette Notification dated 11.01.2000 stating that there shall be no import of any cotton from Pakistan into India. (iii) The Office Memorandum No. 8-96/99-PPI was issued only on 14.03.2000 by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operation, to permit the imported cotton bales which have been shipped and/or arrived in India prior to the Notification dated 11.01.2000. Hence, the question of illegal cancellation of delivery of the goods does not arise. (iv) The party mentioned in the notice, which is considered to be only a High Sea Sale Party, opened the L/C with their own interest on 24.02.2000 and made necessary arrangements for re-export the consignment. Hence, the question of claiming any loss never arise. (v) The allegations that the defendants refused and cancel the plaintiff's cargo, as per the proceedings reference No. F-3-25/00-T, dated 21.01.2000, is untenable or false. The 2nd defendant acted upon only the orders from the Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. In the same way, the 2nd defendant allowed the plaintiff's cargo for re-export. (vi) The allegation that the delivery was stopped due to illegal, cancellation by the defendants and the Plaintiff has no other option except find foreign buyer and the plaintiff was forced to sell the goods to Thailand are all false. This defendant has no way connected for re-export. The plaintiff himself made this arrangement without any notice to this defendant or to get any information from this defendant. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Tuticorin, framed necessary issues and tried the suit. 7. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, one Alagarsamy was examined as P.W. 1 and 20 documents were marked as Exs. A1 to A20. However, on the side of the defendants, one Elangovan was examined as D.W. 1 and no documents were marked. 8. 7. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, one Alagarsamy was examined as P.W. 1 and 20 documents were marked as Exs. A1 to A20. However, on the side of the defendants, one Elangovan was examined as D.W. 1 and no documents were marked. 8. Having considered all the materials placed before him, the learned Additional District Judge, Tuticorin, came to the conclusion that the defendants committed an act of wrongful cancellation and thereby, the plaintiff sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 6,28,599/- and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 9. Aggrieved over the said finding arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge, Tuticorin, the second defendant has filed this appeal for the relief of setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 09.11.2006 made in O.S. No. 90 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. 1, Tuticorin. 10. Considering the arguments advanced on either side, this Court has formulated the following issues for deciding this appeal (i) Whether the cancellation order dated 21.01.2000 passed by the second defendant is on good faith or not? (ii) Whether the Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tuticorin, is legally sustainable or not? (iii) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to? Issue No. 1 11. In order to decide the said issues, it is necessary to peruse the documents exhibited before the Trial Court. 12. The plaintiff Company is a registered Company, incorporated under the Companies Act. Further, the said Company was having a Memorandum of Articles of Association under Ex. A1. A resolution was passed on 06.11.2000, permitting the plaintiff to file a suit for claiming damages from the defendants. A copy of the resolution is marked as Ex. A2. Under Ex. A3, the plaintiff Company, on 29.12.1999, purchased 646 Bales of Pakistan Raw Cotton, which was exported from Karachi Port in Pakistan. Ex. A4 is the invoice pertaining to the purchase made by the plaintiff. Further, for 646 bales of Pakistan Raw Cotton imported by the plaintiff, Pakistan Fumigation Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. issued a certificate on 18.12.1999 and the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Department of Plant Protection, Karachi, Pakistan, issued Phytosanitary/Health certificate on 21.12.1999. Ex. A4 is the invoice pertaining to the purchase made by the plaintiff. Further, for 646 bales of Pakistan Raw Cotton imported by the plaintiff, Pakistan Fumigation Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. issued a certificate on 18.12.1999 and the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Department of Plant Protection, Karachi, Pakistan, issued Phytosanitary/Health certificate on 21.12.1999. The said certificates were marked as Exs. A5 and A6. Ex. A7 is the copy of the order of Plant Protection Officer, Tuticorin, wherein, it is stated that the containers are not recommended for release. Ex. A8 is the copy of Office Memorandum by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture. Ex. A9 is the Notification of Government of India, dated 11.01.2000. Ex. A10-Bill of Lading and Ex. A11-copy of Exchange Control Declaration Form are filed with regard to the business made with the Thailand party. Exs. A12 and A13 are the receipts issued by the Agent of the plaintiff, namely, St. John Freight Systems Ltd. towards certain charges and also for demurrage. The purchaser of the plaintiff issued a bill of demurrage charges under Ex. A14. Ex. A15 dated 03.03.2000 is the copy of invoice pertaining to the sale happened with the Thailand party. 13. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 06.01.2000 itself, the consignment arrived at Tuticorin port and thereafter, on 10.01.2000, the authorities concerned permitted the plaintiff to take delivery. Only due to Labour strike, the plaintiff was not in a position to take delivery immediately. In the said circumstances, on 21.01.2000, the second respondent issued a cancellation order. Therefore, the defendants had not permitted the plaintiff to take delivery of cotton bales. The said facts are adverted by the defendants without any disputes. The second defendant, at the time of giving evidence, admitted in his cross examination that the strike was going on in the port of Tuticorin, when the plaintiff was permitted to take consignment. It shows that only in an unexpected circumstance, delivery was not taken by the plaintiff till 21.01.2000. 14. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that on 22.03.2000, the consignment was sold to a party doing business in Thailand. Only for the reason that the second respondent has not permitted the plaintiff to take the consignment on 21.01.2000, the plaintiff was forced to sell the consignment to the Thailand party. 14. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that on 22.03.2000, the consignment was sold to a party doing business in Thailand. Only for the reason that the second respondent has not permitted the plaintiff to take the consignment on 21.01.2000, the plaintiff was forced to sell the consignment to the Thailand party. Further, the documents exhibited on the side of the plaintiff under Exs. A10 to A15 clearly prove that the plaintiff sustained loss due to re-export to the tune of suit amount. The learned counsel further contended that while at the time of disposing of the suit, the learned Additional District Judge came to the correct conclusion that the impugned order passed by the second defendant is against the principles of natural justice and therefore, the finding of the learned trial Judge does not warrant any interference. 15. Now, it is the contention of the second defendant that the cancellation order was issued by him based on the Notification issued by the Central Government dated 11.01.2000 and therefore, the cancellation order passed by the second defendant is on good faith and not on negligence. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court requires interference. 16. At this juncture, it is necessary to see the Notification issued by the Central Government which was marked as Ex. A9, which reads as follows: Government of India Ministry of Agriculture, (Department of Agriculture and Cooperation) New Delhi, January 11, 2000 Notification G.S.R.............(E) - In exercise of the power conferred under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 (2 of 1914), the Central Government hereby makes the following regulations further to amend the Import of Cotton into India Regulations, 1972, namely:- 1. (1) These regulations may be called the Import of Cotton into India (Amendment) Regulation, 2000. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. (1) These regulations may be called the Import of Cotton into India (Amendment) Regulation, 2000. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. In the Import of Cotton into India Regulations, 1972, after paragraph 3, the following paragraph 3A shall be inserted, namely:- "3 A. I here shall be no import of any cotton from Pakistan into India as the presence of cotton seeds of exotic origin, of dried leaves and their stalks in the imported consignment carry exotic strains of destructive bacterial, viral and fungal diseases which are violent under Indian climatic conditions." Sd/- (Rita Sharma) Joint Secretary to the Government of India 17. Now, on perusal of the said Notification, it is very clear that the said Notification was issued under the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act')', in which, Section 3 reads as follows: 3. Power of the Central Government to regulate or prohibit the import of articles likely to infect: (i) The Central Government may, by notification in the Gazette of India, prohibit or regulate, subject to such restrictions and conditions as the Central Government may impose, the import into India, or any part thereof, or any specified place therein, of any articles or class of articles likely to cause infection to any or of insects generally or any class of insects. (ii) A notification under the Section may specify any article or class of articles or any insect or class of insects either generally on in any particular manner, whether with reference to the country of origin, or the route by which imported or otherwise." 18. So, according to Section 3 of the said Act, the Government of India is having power to issue Notification prohibiting or regulating import of articles subject to some restrictions and conditions and thereby, the issuance of Notification under Ex. A9 dated 11.01.2000 by the Government of India is in accordance with the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914. 19. Now, the next contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff is that the Notification dated 11.01.2000 came into effect only on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. A9 dated 11.01.2000 by the Government of India is in accordance with the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914. 19. Now, the next contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff is that the Notification dated 11.01.2000 came into effect only on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. But, contrary to the same, immediately, on seeing the Notification, without giving any notice or reasons, the second respondent passed the cancellation order, which is against the principles of natural justice as well as against the Notification made by the Central Government and thereby, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of damages. 20. Now, on considering the said submission with the case on our hand, it is true that as per the contention of the said Notification, the same came into force on the date of publication in the public Gazette. But, before the trial Court, a copy of the Gazette Notification was not produced and marked as Exhibit. However, in this aspect, it is relevant to see the another Notification dated 14.03.2000 issued by the Central Government, which is for lifting the ban imposed on 11.01.2000. On a careful reading of the said Notification dated 14.03.2000, it is clearly mentioned that the restriction for import the cotton from Pakistan came into force on 11.01.2000. In the said circumstances, it cannot understand that the ban imposed by the Central Government did not come into force on 11.01.2000. In this regard, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff is not supported of his case. 21. Since the said Notification dated 11.01.2000 was under Section 3 of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914, it is also necessary to see Section 6 of the said Act, which reads as follows: "6. Protection to persons acting under Act: No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act." 22. Now, the another contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff is that the second defendant has not acted upon in accordance with the Notification issued by the Central Government. Now, the another contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff is that the second defendant has not acted upon in accordance with the Notification issued by the Central Government. Even though there is no evidence on the side of the plaintiff that before passing the said order, the second defendant told about the date of Notification issued by the Indian Government, it is apparent that a copy of the Notification was received on 18th January 2000 at 15.50 hrs. through fax. Thereafter only, i.e. on 21.01.2000, the second defendant passed the said order. Contra to the said facts, the second defendant is not permitted the plaintiff to take delivery from 11.01.2000. 23. In this regard, on culling out the entire facts and circumstances of this case, if really, the Notification issued by the Union Government was received by the second defendant on 18.01.2000 at 15.50 hrs., nobody prevented the plaintiff from taking the said consignment before 21.01.2000, i.e. on the date only, the second defendant passed the order prohibiting the plaintiff to take the consignment. But, without giving any specific reasons, the plaintiff is not taking the consignment before 21.01.2000 and after 11.01.2000. The second defendant, only for obeying the order passed by the Central Government, passed the prohibiting order. So, the said order passed by the second defendant is only in good faith, of course, it is his official duty. 24. More than that, in order to identify the intention of the second defendant, it is necessary to see the copy of the order passed by the Central Government dated 14.03.2000, in which, the ban imposed on 11.01.2000 was lifted. Before the Trial Court, the order passed by the Indian Government dated 14.03.2000 was marked as Ex. A8, in which, a direction was issued to the Secretary, Ministry of Textiles, that cotton bales which have been shipped and arrived in India prior to the notification dated 11.01.2000 lying at the ports to let into the country as a one time exemption and allow this cotton to be consumed by textile Industry, subject to the certain conditions. The said Official Memorandum clearly exposes that the earlier notification came into effect on 11.01.2000. Now, on seeing the order issued by the second defendant, it appears that the order was issued only on 20.01.2000, after the ban came into effect on 11.01.2000. The said Official Memorandum clearly exposes that the earlier notification came into effect on 11.01.2000. Now, on seeing the order issued by the second defendant, it appears that the order was issued only on 20.01.2000, after the ban came into effect on 11.01.2000. Therefore, the Official Memorandum dated 14.03.2000 shows that the second defendant issued the cancellation order on 20.01.2000 only in good faith. Further, as per Section 6 of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914, no suit will lie against any person who acted in good faith. 25. Moreover, it is a pathetic case that the plaintiff, without approaching the second defendant or without submitting any letter to the second defendant for taking delivery, directly contacted the Thailand party and sold the consignment. Only because of the said act/conduct, now, the plaintiff sustained the loss to the tune of suit amount. 26. Exs. A10 to A15 clearly proves that the Export done by the plaintiff to the Thailand party is an individual act. Thus, on considering the entire aspects, particularly, the Notification dated 14.03.2000, in which, the Central Government specifically permitted the importers to take consignment, which was reached the port before 11.01.2000 and it clearly reveals that the earlier Notification came into effect on 11.01.2000 and because of that reason only, the second defendant passed the cancellation order. Hence, the second defendant is no way responsible for non-taking of consignment before 21.01.2000 by the plaintiff. The said situation shows that the cancellation order passed by the second defendant is only in good faith. But, the trial Court, without considering the element of letters dated 11.01.2000 and 14.03.2000, concluded the case in favour of the plaintiff, which is totally an erroneous one. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the appellant. Issue No. 2 27. As already stated, the trial Court directed the defendants to compensate the plaintiff by paying the damages. It is true that if the act done by the second defendant is in the form of negligence, he is liable to pay damages. As already discussed in issue No. 1, the order passed by the second defendant is only in good faith. Further, the cancellation order passed by the second defendant is based on the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914, so, no suit will lie against the officer for anything done in good faith as per Section 6 of the said Act. As already discussed in issue No. 1, the order passed by the second defendant is only in good faith. Further, the cancellation order passed by the second defendant is based on the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914, so, no suit will lie against the officer for anything done in good faith as per Section 6 of the said Act. 28. On the other hand, while at the time of disposing of the suit, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the order was passed by the second defendant on assumption and only due to the said order, the plaintiff suffered loss of Rs. 8,98,152/-, by saying that the order passed by the Government dated 14.03.2000 is a clarificatory order. 29. In support of the case, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/first respondent relied upon the Judgments, in Shakti Tubes Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Others (2009) 7 SCC 673 : LNIND 2009 SC 1410, S.R. Srinivasa and Others v. S. Padmavathamma (2010) 5 CTC 364 : LNIND 2010 SC 383 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, Chennai, Rep. By its Chariman and Others v. T. Vellaichamy Nadar (2018) 1 CTC 612 (DB) : (2018) 3 MLJ 282 . 29.1. On a careful reading and also on going through the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, it appears that those facts mentioned in the above Judgment are entirely different from the facts of the present case on hand. 30. Here, it is the case, in which, the plaintiff issued a Bill of Lading to the Thailand party only on 22nd March 2000, i.e. after passing the order passed by the Government, in which, the Government permitted the importers to take delivery of goods, which reached the port on or before 11.01.2000. The said act shows that the plaintiff voluntarily sold the cotton which was purchased from Karachi port in a hurried manner. So, the plaintiff has also committed negligence on his part. For the negligence committed by the plaintiff, this Court cannot direct the defendants to pay damages. But, the Court below, without seeing the said aspect, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court is nothing, but, erroneous one. Accordingly, issue No. 2 is answered in favour of the appellant. 31. In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed. But, the Court below, without seeing the said aspect, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court is nothing, but, erroneous one. Accordingly, issue No. 2 is answered in favour of the appellant. 31. In the result, the Appeal Suit is allowed. The Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2006 made in O.S. No. 90 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. 1, Tuticorin, is hereby set aside. No costs.