STATE OF BIHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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 :-

(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 :