9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (3) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h had abdicated the throne in favour of his eldest son Bodh Chandra Singh, and, in consequence, Bodh Chandra Singh was recognised as the Ruler of Manipur State. 2. On the 20th September, 1949, the State of Manipur merged in the Dominion of India under an agreement of Merger executed on the said date. As a result of the said Agreement, all the properties belonging to the State vested in the Dominion Government and, the private properties of the Maharaja were left unaffected and were, according to the petitioner, inherited and owned by all the members of the coparcenary under the provisions of the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. It appears that at the time of the said Merger, Maharaja Bodh Chandra Singh had prepared an inventory of all his private properties and after scrutiny, it had been approved by the Government of India. While approving the said inventory, the Government of India had definitely stated that the effect of the declaration of the said property as private property was that the State had no claim on it. The said declaration was approved without prejudice to any rights of third parties. Later, on the 9th December, 1955, Maharaja Bodh Chandra Singh died, and he has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to its earlier decision in the case of Mohan Lal Jain v. Shri Sawai Man Singhji, [1962]1SCR702 and has come to the conclusion that the validity of Section 87B could not be successfully challenged. In coming to this conclusion, this Court has referred to the historical and legislative background which had to be examined in determining the validity of the said section, and held that considered in the light of the said background, the provisions of Sections 86 and 87B must be regarded as constitutionally valid. Even so, it was observed that the Central Government may seriously examine the question as to whether Section 87B should be allowed to continue on the statute book any longer in respect of suits which may be filed against the Rulers of former Indian States as regards causes of action accruing after the 26th January, 1950. It was also pointed out in that case that in dealing with applications for consent, scrupulous care should be taken not to reject the said applications in a casual manner, and consent could be legitimately refused only where, prima facie it appeared to the appropriate authority that the claim sought to be preferred by the proposed suit was frivolous. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order would be confined only to orders which can be passed under Section 87B in regard to Rulers of former Indian States. Section 87B(1) provides that the provisions of Section 85 and of Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 86 shall apply in relation to the Rulers of any former Indian State as they apply in relation to the Ruler of a foreign State. Section 86(1) itself deals with the cases of Rulers of foreign States and grants them the specified immunity from being sued in the municipal courts of India without the consent of the Central Government certified in writing by a Secretary to that Government. The conditional immunity granted to the Rulers of foreign States by Section 86(1) is based on considerations of diplomatic immunity in favour of foreign Ruling Monarchs which is recognised by International Law and convention. In dealing with) cases falling under Section 86(1), considerations of International Law and tradition and other diplomatic aspects of the question would be relevant, and so, in according consent to a suit proposed to be filed against a Ruler of a foreign State, it would be open to the Central Government to take all the said considerations into account bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner's grievance. 9. Besides, it may be relevant to observe that if the authority conferred, under Section 87B is judiciously and properly exercised, it would serve the same purpose which Section 80 of the Code serves in regard to suits filed against the Government. Just as in the case of suits falling under the purview of Section 80 the legislature requires that notice should be given of the plaint with all the particulars specified by Section 80 and in the manner prescribed for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary litigation, so in the case of applications made under Section 87B government may reasonably and legitimately try to see if the institution of the suits can be avoided by asking the Ruler of a former Indian State to consider the claim and settle it amicably with out litigation. Section 80 is intended and may in some cases lead to settlement of disputes where the government is satisfied that the claim intended to be made by the litigant is well-founded. Section 87B may also achieve the same result. It is, of course true that under Section 80 there is no question of any consent or sanction being given as there is in Section 87B; but we-have referred to Section 80 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er's claim, and that in our opinion, introduces an infirmity in the impugned order. Section 87B authorises the Central Government either to accord consent or to refuse to accord such consent; it is not open to the Central Government to impose any conditions on such consent, or to accord consent only in part, or to refuse it in part, particularly in cases where reliefs are claimed on one and the same cause of action. If it is held that the Central Government can impose conditions in granting consent, it would virtually be conferring jurisdiction on the Central Government to adjudicate upon the dispute; and that is not the object of Section 87B. Beading the order passed in the present case, we are inclined to hold that the Central Government has accorded consent to the petitioner to file his suit and when that is done, the power conferred on the Central Government by Section 87B has been exercised. The further direction contained in the order that consent would not be accorded to respect of properties mentioned in Schedules B, C, D and X, is clearly invalid. We feel no difficulty in reaching this conclusion, because the affidavit filed by the respondent in clear and unmistakable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
