TMI Blog1959 (7) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Papanasam. He made one such application on 26th October, 1953, for transporting 150 bags of rice from Saliyamangalam to Sathur. The permit was refused illegally by the officer. Representations to the District Commercial Tax Officer were of no avail. At the time when the application was made, the price of rice was Rs. 45 per bag. On 12th November, 1953, when a permit was issued to him the price of paddy went down to Rs. 35 per bag. In this manner the plaintiff has suffered loss of Rs. 1,500 which he would have got as profit had he transported the 150 bags in time to Sathur. On these allegations, the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,535-4-0 against the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Tanjore. The case for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e permit was the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Papanasam. When the plaintiff applied to him on the 28th October, 1953, for a permit he in good faith in the course of the execution of duties and of the discharge of his functions thought that the circular requiring issue of a permit did not apply to this case because it did riot involve payment of sales tax and he informed The plaintiff accordingly. The plaintiff wrote to the Commercial Tax Officer complaining about the refusal. He directed the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to issue the permit. Thereupon on 12th November, 1953, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer called for an application from the plaintiff and issued the permit. On a prior occasion after the receipt of the instructio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 of 1850) is the same in England, United States of America and India, and has been fully discussed in Thangavelu Mudaliar v. V.N. Manickam (S.A. No. 1030 of 1956) by me and can be gathered from the following standard treatises: Kameswara Rao "Laws of Damages and Compensation", 2nd Edn., Ch. 31, pp. 1002 and the following; S. Ramaswami Iyer, "The Law of Torts", 5th Edn., pp. 676-678; Harper's Law of Torts, U.S.A., p. 666 and the following; Restatement of the Law of Torts, Vol. IV, Division Eleven, Ch. 42, p. 395 and the following, U.S.A.; Clark and Lindsell (n Torts, 11th Edn., p. 164, U.K. The Government is not responsible for the misfeasance or negligence or omission of duty of the subordinate officers or agents in the public service. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estricted scope in practical application for the reason that public officers doing public duties must be fearless of the consequences of their acts and must perform them with a sense of security. Law has, therefore, given them an immunity from the consequence of their acts performed bona fide in the discharge of public duties. Cases may easily be imagined where a public officer acting in his official capacity may cause harm or injury to an individual, (i) in the bona fide and honest exercise of his functions, and within the scope of his authority, (ii) in acting beyond the scope or in excess of his authority, and (iii) in the negligent non-performance of his duties. With regard to cases falling under class (i) it is manifest that the office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsuance of a statute and according to law, they are entitled to the special protection which the legislature intended for them although they have done an illegal act: Spooner v. Juddow4 M.I.A. 353 at 379. In other words, an honest error of judgment on the part of the officer may protect him from all liability. In cases falling under class (iii) where the officer is guilty of negligent non-performance of his official and public duty, there appears to be no reason why the officer, whose omission may have caused serious injury to a person, should not be made answerable. If a duty is assumed to exist, there must always be a remedy for its non-performance, and if the non-performance be the result of negligence or malicious design it is clear tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnorance or rashness. The belief must be entertained in good faith. The term is meant to require an honest persuasion formed, after fair enquiry and consideration, upon what might mistakenly either in point of law or fact, be considered a reasonable and probable ground by a person possessing ordinary qualifications for the office held by him and sought to be made liable. The belief must appear to have been trustworthy to his mind. A belief cannot be said to have the quality of trustworthiness unless it rested upon some probable foundation for it in the judgment of a man of ordinary capacities. In short, bona fides does not protect an officer who does not act with due care and attention and the mere absence of mala fides is not a good defe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
