Forgot password
1960 (9) TMI 108 - SC - Indian Laws
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the State under Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Interpretation of the Subordinate Judge's order dated March 19, 1951.
3. Application of the rule that the Crown or State cannot be proceeded against for a tort or wrongdoing.
4. Whether the State is bound by a statute unless expressly named.
5. Proof of the notification being an act of the State Government.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability of the State under Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The principal point of law was whether a State could be proceeded against under Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for willfully disobeying an order of temporary injunction. The court held that the State is indeed liable under this provision. The court emphasized that the punitive aspect of Order 39, Rule 2(3) is designed to enforce the order, similar to how a decree for a permanent injunction is executed under Order 21, Rule 32. The court rejected the argument that the State could not be proceeded against for such quasi-criminal wrongs, affirming that the State is bound by the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Interpretation of the Subordinate Judge's order dated March 19, 1951:
The court examined whether the Subordinate Judge's order prohibited the State from issuing a notification under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The court concluded that the order indeed prohibited such a notification. The order directed the State "not to issue any notification for taking possession," which in the context of the Act, meant a notification under Section 3(1). The court held that the order must be read in conjunction with the plaint and the application for a temporary injunction, which clearly indicated that the injunction covered a notification under Section 3(1).
3. Application of the rule that the Crown or State cannot be proceeded against for a tort or wrongdoing:
The court rejected the argument that the rule exempting the Crown or State from being proceeded against for torts applied to this case. The court noted that Article 300 of the Constitution, which allows suits against the Union and the States, also extends to proceedings for disobedience of court orders. The court emphasized that the State, as a party defendant, is within the terms of Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code. The court also noted that the State is bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides a complete procedure for suits against the Government, including the enforcement of orders.
4. Whether the State is bound by a statute unless expressly named:
The court addressed the argument that the State is not bound by a statute unless expressly named. The court held that the State is bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, which includes provisions for suits against the Government. The court noted that the scheme of the Code treats the State as any other party to a proceeding before the court. The court also held that the expression "person guilty of disobedience" in Order 39, Rule 2(3) includes the State when it is a party defendant.
5. Proof of the notification being an act of the State Government:
The court examined whether the publication of the notification under Section 3(1) was an act of the State Government. The court held that the notification, expressed in the name of the Governor and authenticated as prescribed by Article 166(2) of the Constitution, is a valid order of the Government. The court rejected the argument that the notification could not be attributed to the State Government without proof that it was authorized by the Governor personally. The court emphasized that the Governor remains responsible for the actions of his subordinates taken in his name.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the State of Bihar was liable for willfully disobeying the order of temporary injunction issued by the Subordinate Judge. The court emphasized the importance of the rule of law and the duty of governmental authorities to obey court orders. The court condemned the State Government's conduct and lack of contrition, stressing that adherence to judicial orders enhances the prestige of the executive government in a democratic setup. The appeal was dismissed with costs.