MITTER - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THIS group of applications can be divided into two parts.The object of one group is to get the plaints in nine suits filed in this courtrejected while that of the other group is to stay the hearing of the suits. Thesuits are all of the same pattern in each of which the State of Bihar figuresas the plaintiff. The Unoin of India is the first defendant in all of themwhile the second defendant in six is Hindustan Steel Ltd. and in threeothers the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. The cause of action in allthe suits is of the same nature. Briefly stated the plaintiff's case in all thesuits is that "due to the negligence or deliberate action of the servants ofboth defendants there was a short delivery of iron and steel materialordered by the plaintiff to various sites in the State of Bihar in connectionwith the construction work of the Gandak Project". As the goods werein all cases booked by rail for despatch to the project site, both defendantsare sought to be made liable for short delivery, the first defendant as theowner of the railways and the second defendant as the consignor of thegoods under contract with the State of Bihar for supply of the material.In each case there is a prayer for a decree for a specific sum of money tobe passed either against the first defendant "or alternatively against thesecond defendant". Normally all suits of this kind are instituted all overIndia in different courts beginning from the courts of the lowestjurisdiction to the High court exercising original jurisdiction. The onlydistinguishing feature of this series of suits from others of everyday occurrence in different courts is that a State is the plaintiff in eachcase. In all suits of a similar nature which are filed in courts other thanthis court, a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is anessential pro-requisite. No such notice has been served in any of these cases.The applications were set down for trial of three issues sought to be raisedby way of preliminary issues. They are as follows :- 1. Whether the alleged cause or causes of action in this suit arewithin the scope of Article 131 of the Constitution ? 2. Whether this suit is within the scope of Article 131 of the Constitution in view of a non-state, viz., defendant No. 2, having beenmade a party to the suit ? 3. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 80 C. P. C.for want of notice to defendant No. 1 ? The question before this court is, whether the dispute in thesecases is within the purview of that article (quoted in the foot-note). Itmust be noted that the article confers jurisdiction on this court to theexclusion of all other courts in any dispute between the parties motionedtherein. There is however an over-riding provision that such jurisdictionis subject to the provisions of the Constitution and our attention was drawnto a few of these provisions where the disputes specified are to be adjudicatedupon in entirely different manner. The most important feature of Article131 is that it makes no mention of any party other than the government JUDGEMENT_67_1_1970Html1.htm 70of India or any one or more of the States who can be arrayed as a disputant. The other distinguishing feature is that the court is not requiredto adjudicate upon the disputes in exactly the same way as ordinary courtsof law are normally called upon Co do for upholding the rights of theparties and enforcement of its orders and decisions. The words in thearticle "if and in so for as the dispute involves any question (whether oflaw or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends"are words of limitation on the exercise of that jurisdiction. These wordsindicate that the disputes should be in respect of legal rights and notdisputes of a political character. Moreover this court is only concernedto give its decision on questions of law or of fact on which the existenceor extent of a legal right claimed depends. Once the court comes to itsconclusion on the cases presented by any disputants and gives its adjudication on the facts or the points of law raised, the function of this courtunder Article 131 is over. Article 131 does not prescribe that a suit mustbe filed in the Supreme court for complete adjudication of the disputeenvisaged therein or the passing of a decree capable of execution in theordinary way as decrees of other courts are. It is open to an aggrievedparty to present a petition to this court containing a full statement ofthe relevant facts and praying for the declaration of its rights as againstthe other disputants. Once that is does, the function of this court underArticle 131 is at an end. The framers of the Constitution do not appearto have contemplated the contingency of a party to an adjudication bythis court under Article 131 not complying with the declaration made.Our law is not without instances where a court may be called upon to makean adjudication of the rights of the parties to an agreement or an awardsimpliciter on the basis of such rights without passing a decree. A case inpoint is Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act. Further, all adjudicationsby a court of law even under a decree in a suit need not necessarily becapable of enforcement by way of execution. Section 42 of the SpecificRelief Act, 1877 now replacad by Section 34 of the new Act enablesa person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any propertyto institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny histitle to such character or right without asking for any further relief subjectto the limitations prescribed by the section. We need not however laymuch stress on this aspect of the case as we are only concerned to findout whether the suits can be entertained by this court. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the article specify the parties who canappear as disputants before this court. Under clause (a) it is the government of India and one or more States ; under clause (b) it is the governmentof India and one or more States on one side and one or more other States onthe other, while under clause (c) the parties can be two or more States without the government of India being involved in the dispute. The specification of the parties is not of an inclusive kind. The express words of clauses(a), (b) and (c) exclude the idea of a private citizen, a firm or a corporationfiguring as disputant either alone or even along with a State or with theGovernment of India in the category of a party to the dispute. There is no71scope for suggesting that a private citizen, a firm or a corporation can bearrayed as a party by itself on one side and one or more States including theGovernment of India on the other. Nor is there anything in the articlewhich suggests a claim being made by or preferred against a private partyjointly or in the alternative with a State or the government of India. Theframers of the Constitution appear not to have contemplated the case of adispute in which a private citizen, a firm or a corporation is in any wayinvolved as a fit subject for adjudication by this court under its exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction conferred by Article 131.
(3.) LIKE many of the provisions of our Constitution this article had afore-runner in the government of India Act, 1935. Section 204 of that Actprovided for conferment of original jurisdiction on the Federal court ofIndia. That section ran as follows : "(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Federal court -shall,to the exclusion of any other court, have an original jurisdiction in anydispute between any two or more of the following parties, that is to say,the Federation, any of the Provinces or any of the Federal States, if andin so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) onwhich the existence or extent of a legal right depends : Provided that the said jurisdiction shall not extend to- (a) a dispute to which a State is a party, unless the dispute (i) concerns the interpretation of this Act or of an Order in councilmade thereunder, or the extent of the legislative or executive authorityvested in the Federation by virtue of the Instrument of Accession of thatState; or (ii) arises under an agreement made under Part VI of this Act inrelation to the administration in that State of a law of the FederalLegislature, or otherwise concerns some matter with respect to which theFederal Legislature has power to make laws for that State ; or (iii) arises under an agreement made after the establishment of theFederation, with the approval of His Majesty's Representative for theexercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States,between that State and the Federation or a Province, being an agreement which expressly provides that the said jurisdiction shall extend tosuch a dispute; {b) a dispute arising under any agreement which expressly providesthat the said jurisdiction shall not extend to such a dispute. (2) The Federal court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shallnot pronounce any judgment other than a declaratory judgment." Clause (a) of the proviso to the section defined the categories of disputeswhich might be raised before the Federal court while clause (b) permitted theparties to provide for the exclusion of such jurisdiction in the agreement inrespect whereof the dispute arose. It will be noted that the scope of thedispute under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) was limited to the interpretation ofthe government of India Act or Order in council or to the extent of legislative or executive authority vested in the Federation while under sub-clause(i) the dispule had to relate to the administration in a State of a law of theFederal Legislature or otherwise concerned with some matter relating to thelegislative competency of the said Legislature. Under sub-clause (iii) thedispute could only be one under an agreement made after the establishmentof the Federation between the State and the Federation or a Province subject72to the condition therein specified. A dispute of the nature which is raisedin this series of a case was outside the ken of Section 204 of the governmentof India Act. It may not be out of place to trace the origin of Section 204. Theproceedings of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform, Session1933-34, Vol. I, Part II, Paragraph 309 read as follows : "A Federal court is an essential elements in a Federal Constitution.It is at once the interpreter and guardian of the Constitution and atribunal for the determination of disputes between the constituent unitsof the Federation. The establishment of a Federal court is part of theWhite Paper Scheme, and we approve genially the proposals with regardto it. We have, however, certain comments to make upon them, whichwe set out below." The report of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform,Session 1933-34, Vol. I, Part I contained two paragraphs bearing on thismatter. Paragraph 322 was a reproduction of paragraph 309 quoted above.Paragraph 324 ran as follows : "324. It is proposed that the Federal court shall have an originaljurisdiction in- (i) any matter involving the interpretation of the Constitution Actor the determination of any rights or obligations arising thereunder,where the parties to the dispute are (a) the Federation and either aProvince or a State, or (b) two Provinces or two States, or a provinceand a State; (ii) any matter involving the interpretation of) or arising under, anyagreement entered into after the commencement of the Constitution Actbetween the Federation and a Federal Unit or between Federal Units,unless the agreement otherwise provides. This jurisdiction is to be an exclusive one, and in our opinionrightly so, since it would be altogether inappropriate if proceedings couldbe taken by one Unit of the Federation against another in the courts ofeither of them. For that reason we think that, where the parties arcUnits of the Federation or the Federation ilself, the jurisdiction ought loinclude not only the interpretation of the Constitution Act, but also theinterpretation of Federal laws, by which we meant any laws enacted bythe Federal Legislature." It is clear from the; above that the trainers of the government of IndiaAct 1935 thought that the Federal court should be the tribunal for thedetermination of disputes between the constituent units of the Federationand it sought to lay down the exact nature of the dispute which that courtcould be called upon to examine and decide. ;