9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (3) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ab. Civil Appeal No. 666 of 1957 relates to the establishment of the manufacturing business, and Civil Appeal No. 667 of 1957, to the purchases of wheat and barley. With reference to the establishment of the business, the appellant urges that it was agreed that the capital required would be contributed by the parties in equal shares, and that the profit and loss would also be shared equally. As regards the purchases, the appellant was to advance such money as might be required, and the State of Mayurbhanj was to provide necessary permits and facilities for transport. In furtherance of this agreement, the appellant urges that he established a factory and started the business, but the Maharaja, instead of contributing his share of the capital, asked the appellant to do so on his behalf, promising to pay him the amount. The factory was constructed, and, it appears, it went into production, but later closed down, suffering a total loss of ₹ 2,80,875-9-3. In the first case, therefore, the claim of the appellant against the Maharaja and the State was ₹ 1,40,400 odd. In the second case, the appellant advanced a sum of ₹ 50,000 and also incurred a further expenditure o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall be final and shall not be liable. to be called into question in any Court whatsoever..' (h) No court shall have jurisdiction to investigate any pecuniary claim against the State or against the Ruler of the State in his capacity as Ruler of that State and such claim shall be determined only in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph. (i) The Administrator may delegate his powers under this paragraph to any officer subordinate to him not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate. (j) The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any claim against the State based on a cause of action which arose on or after the 1st January 1949 and such claim shall be disposed of in accordance with the laws applied or continued in force under paragraph 5. The appellant preferred his two claims for the consideration of the Claims Officer, who was dealing with such claims on behalf of the Administrator. The Claims Officer made a report to the Administrator on June 20, 1951 in respect of the first claim, and after examining the merits, gave his conclusions as follows: Considering the evidence laid by the Claimant before me in support of his claim, I find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement entered into and finally settled. Sd. B. Mohapatra (Revenue Minister, Mayurbhanj) . It was in these circumstances, that the two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution were filed. The High Court dismissed them. From the order of the High Court, it appears that two points alone were urged before it. The first was that the decision of the Claims Officer should have gone to the Board of Revenue as a whole and not to a single Member and the second was that the appellant should have been served with a notice by the Board before the recommendations of the Claims Officer were rejected, and, as has now been argued before this Court, allowed a hearing. The first point was not argued before us, and it seems that the appellant has accepted the decision of the High Court that the Third Member was competent to hear and dispose of these cases. The second point alone has been argued, and. needs to be considered. The case was argued by Mr. N. C. Chatterjee on behalf of the appellant as illustrating a patent breach of the principles of natural justice. He contended that his client was entitled to a proper hearing before the report in his favour was rejected, and relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the new Sovereign State and the act of State would then have come to an end. But short of an acceptance, either express or implied, the time for the exercise of the sovereign right to reject a claim was still open. In Vaje Singh Ji's case (1924) L.R. 51 I.A. 357), enquiries were made by Captain Buckle and again in 1868, and the two enquiries lasted 16 years before the rejection of the claims, and the rejection was still upheld as an act of State. Vaje Singh Ji's case (1924) L.R. 51 I.A. 357) has been relied upon by this Court in the two cases referred to, in the argument of Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri. It would, therefore, appear that the act of State could not be said to have come to an end, when the Government allowed claims to be preferred, or when their own Officer made his report. The Claims Officer was not a part of the municipal courts, and Government cannot be said to have submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the municipal courts, when it entrusted the enquiry to him. Nor can the investigation of claims be said to have conferred a civil right upon the claimants to enforce their claims against the State. In our opinion, enquiry was for the benefit of the State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
