9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for damages due to alleged acts of trespass by Income Tax Officers. Application of Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935 to protect public servants. Interpretation of the section in relation to acts done in the execution of official duty. Consideration of precedents and legal principles in determining the applicability of the section. Effect of allegations on the official nature of acts done by public officers. Analysis: The plaintiff in this case has brought a claim for damages against two defendants, who are Income Tax Officers, for alleged acts of trespass. The plaintiff asserts that the defendants, while investigating his affairs, entered his premises without consent and seized his account books. The defendants, however, deny these allegations, leading to the framing of issues. A key contention raised by the defendants is the application of Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which provides protection to public servants for acts done in the execution of their duties, requiring consent for proceedings against them. The relevant date for servants of the Crown is determined by the establishment of the Federation. In analyzing the applicability of Section 270, the court considers the nature of the acts alleged against the defendants and whether they were performed in the discharge of their official duties as Income Tax Officers. The court emphasizes that the motive behind the act is irrelevant; what matters is whether the act was done or purported to be done in the execution of duty. Referring to legal precedents, the court highlights that the act must be connected to the official character of the person performing it. The court cites the case of Hori Ram Singh v. The Crown to underscore the importance of acts being done under the cloak of an ostensibly official act. The plaintiff's argument that the cases involve factual questions is acknowledged, but the court relies on the principle that the character of an act as an official act remains unchanged despite allegations of bad faith. The court refers to the case of Nand Kumar Sinha v. Rai Bahadur Pashupati Gosh to emphasize that the applicability of the statute depends on what the act purports to be, unaffected by allegations challenging its nature. The court notes that the plaintiff's claim aligns with the defendants' official roles as Income Tax Officers, supporting the conclusion that Section 270(1) applies in this case. As the consent of the Governor-General was not obtained, the court invokes Order VII rule 11(d) to reject the plaint with costs. In conclusion, the judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935, in the context of acts performed by public servants in the discharge of their official duties. The court's analysis underscores the importance of the official nature of acts and the protection afforded to public officers under the statute, leading to the rejection of the plaintiff's claim based on the application of Section 270(1) and the absence of the Governor-General's consent.
|
