Satyanarayana Raju, J. - (1.) This Revision Petition raises a question as to the nature and extent of Government privilege contained in sections 123, 124, and 162 of the Indian Evidence Act. The question has arisen in the following circumstances : Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a suit against the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, and eight other defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the State from assigning the bed of a tank, by name Rolugunt, in the village of Marripalem, in favour of defendants 2 to 9, as such assignment would seriously interfere with the accustomed supply of water for the irrigation of their lands.
(2.) The Government (first defendant) resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that the tank had been abandoned over sixty years ago and hence the plaintiffs had no right to question the assignment of the tank-bed. The first defendant also averred that there would be no diminution of water supply to the plaintiff's lands as the Kotta Varakattu channel would be in a position to irrigate their lands. Pending suit, the plaintiffs applied for a temporary injunction restraining defendants 2 to 9 from raising paddy crop on the bed of the tank. They served upon the first defendant certain interrogatories and called upon the State to produce certain documents. The first defendant answered the interrogatories and filed the documents called for but at the same time claimed privilege in respect of six of those documents. The plaintiffs filed a counter-affidavit wherein they averred that the first defendant was not entitled to claim privilege in respect of those docments. The District Munsif negatived the claim of privilege made by the Government. Hence this Revision.
(3.) On behalf of the State, it is contended before us that the documents in respect of which privilege is claimed are communications made by one officer to another in " official confidence " and that the lower Court is in error in negativing the claim of privilege. Now, the law as to Government privilege is contained in sections 123, 124, and 162 of the Evidence Act and it will be convenient to read these provisions : "123. No one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit. 124. No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure. 162. A witness summoned to produce a document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring at to Court, notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or its admissibility. The validity of any such objection shall be decided by the Court. The Court, if it sees fit, may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility. . . .";