Kaki Lachmiah vs The State of Hyderabad now Andhra Pradesh

Mohammed Ahmed Ansari, J.—This appeal by the plaintiff is against the order of the Chief Judge, Hyderabad City Civil Courts rejecting the plaint because of the absence of the permission to sue under the Suits Against the Government Act. The aforesaid order is dated January, 5,1951, i.e., before the extension of the CPC to Part B States and the claim relates to a period prior to the inauguration of the Constitution. The appellant has claimed Rs. 10,000/-from the State on account of an alleged breach of a contract which he states to have entered into, because the Naib-Nazim of the Excise Department had publicly undertaken that the licence for toddy and liquor for the Fasli Year 1359 (1949-50), would be with the concession of three months period for depositing money.

The appellant further alleges that he took the shop at Sacedabad on the aforesaid undertaking and in view of the toddy shop at Annaram having been wound up and amalgamated with the shop at Sarurnagar, which was at some distance from the shop he had taken at the auction; but in breach of the undertaking the shop at Sarurnagar was brought to Gaddi Annaram which is a new site and is very near to the shop at Saeedabad; that this transfer adversely affected the sale of drinks from the appellants shop and was with a view to confer benefit on a friend of the Naib-Nazim; that it had caused loss and the concession for depositing money was also broken by demanding deposits earlier; and that the shop was re-auctioned, whereas according to the proclamation he could deposit the amount till the end of Bahman 1359 F. (December, 1949). On the aforesaid grounds, the appellant claimed damages.

The alleged breach of the contract obviously ham taken place some time in December, 1949, because it is stated in paragraph 7 of the plaint that on Bahman 10, 1359 F. (December, 10, 1949) the appellant was dispossessed of the shop without notice and when he complained to the Department he was informed about the shop being re-auctioned on account of his failure to pay the deposit, whereof he filed an application on Bahman 26, 1S59 F. (December 26, 1949). In view of such clear allegations, we do not accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the breach of the contract took place on February 26, 1950, because his client was served on the aforesaid day with a notice of January 24, 1950, demanding from him the deficit in the amount caused by the re-auction. According to the appellant the contract having been concluded with the undertakings, the bidders would be allowed three months for making the necessary deposits, the date on which the undertakings were broken is obviously the date on which the breach took place and on which the appellant would become entitled to claim damages. Here is, therefore, in this case a breach before the inauguration of the Constitution.

There was in the then, Hyderabad State enactment called Suits Against Government Act, der which no suit could be filed against the then eminent without permission which was obtained the manner specified in the Act. Section 3 of Act expressly prohibited institution of the Suits: the subsequent Sections provided for riling an publication in the form of a plaint before the Legal Adviser, who after hearing the parties we make recommendations and the Government w either give permission to file the suit or withhold

In case the permission be granted, the I would get back his application with the end ment and could file the suit in the Court in ordinarily such a suit lay. That is the substance the several provisions in the Act, which was repealed till 1955. As the judgment rejecting plaint is dated January, 5, 1951, we are not upon to determine any question of repugnancy between the Act and the Civil Procedure Code, was extended to Part-B states only in April The counsel of the appellant, in these circumstance has urged before us that the enactment was void of Art. 14 of the Constitution and ceased to be c(sic)tive after January 26, 1950.

The test for ascertaining whether Art. the Constitution has been infringed, has beer down by the Supreme Court in series of authorise In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali, AIR SC 75 (A) it was held to consist of three thing intelligible differentia which distinguishes p(sic) covered by the Act from those excluded; an which the legislation seeks to achieve; and a ra(sic) relation between the differentia and the objection these three conditions are fulfilled the legislature are generally held as having been made on reclassification and not discriminatory. In the particular enactment, we have the requirement suits against certain departments of the Standing filed after permission of the Government, it was argued that there is no different between the persons who were claimants against Departments from those who were suing the cipality, Court of Wards or some other local tuition. The intelligible differentia between the is apparent.

The permission was insisted for suit : such Departments as were closely associated the administration of the whole State and w(sic) required against the Departments which were (sic)ing either the affairs of the individuals or were (sic)ing after "local administration. The objection the legislation apparently was to prevent (sic)sary litigations and to afford the Government opportunity of compromising the claim between reached the Court of law, and several pre(sic) in the enactment are related rationally to the reject which the legislature had in view. In circumstances, Section 3 of the Act cannot (sic) to be discriminatory.

The ground for continuing the e(sic) after the inauguration of the Constitution, is (sic)ly obvious. Several States under the Cons(sic) had inherited, if that phrase could be used connection, the rights and obligations of the Indian States and it is but reasonable that the tuition of the liabilities should not be heaving those of the States that have ceased to exist.

We find in Art. 300 of the Constitution the Is ''if this Constitution had not been enacted", follows that a claimant who could not sue a (sic)er Indian State without permission, could not without permission even after the Constitution. therefore, reasonable that the litigant should been given a fair opportunity to get permission under the Act for such suits as could have filed against the former State. Admittedly, Act was an existing enactment when the plaint filed in the case and when it was rejected. In circumstances, the lower Court was right and appeal should be dismissed with costs.