Case: The State Of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shri Mouia Bux And Others

(a) in the case of a suit: by or against the Central Government, the Union of India and (b) in the case of a suit by or against the State Government, the State, shall be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be. It is contended that under the General Clauses Act, S. 3 (8), "Central Government" means in relation to anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Constitution, the President, and under S. 3 (60), "State Government" means, as respects anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Constitution, in the case of a Part C State, the Central Government. The contention, therefore, is that if the State Government means the Central Government in the case of Part C States, then under cl. (a) of S. 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the proper party to sue would be the Union of India. This argument was not accepted by the Judicial Commissioner, and, in our opinion, rightly.8. The matter has to be looked at in this way. "State" is defined by S. 3 (58) as a Part A State or a Part B State or a Part C State. This shows that wherever the word State" is used, it includes a Part C State. In Satya Deo v. Padam Deo, 1955-1 SCR 549 : (AIR 1954 SC 587 ), it has been held by this Court that Part C States had a separate existence and were not merged with the Central Government. "State Government" is then defined in S. 3 (60) in relation to a Part C State, as the Central Government and "Central Government" is defined in S. 3 (8) (ii) as including the Lieutenant Governor acting within the scope of authority given to him under Art. 239. Article 239 reads as follows :"239 (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Part, a State specified in Part C of the First Schedule shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent, as he thinks fit, through a Chief Commissioner or a Lieutenant Governor to be appointed by him . . .."The administration of a Part C State was thus being carried on under the provisions of Art. 239, and, as has been rightly pointed out by the Judicial Commissioner, was not affected by Art, 300. On April 8, 1953, the President issued the following notification :"S.R.O. 699-In pursuance of cl. (1) of Article 239 and clause (1) of Article 243 of the Constitution, and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the late Home Department No. 204/37Judicial, dated the 5th May, 1938 and in partial modification of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of States No. SR.O. 460 dated the 24th August, 1950, in so far as it relates to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act V of1908), the President hereby directs that the functions assigned to the Central Government by Order XXVII of the first Schedule be discharged by the Lieutenant Governor or the Chief Commissioner as the case may be, of every Part C State except the State of Manipur, in respect of such Part C State, and by the Chief Commissioner of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in respect of those Islands."9. In view of this notification, the Lieutenant Governor became the proper authority under O. 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By virtue of the definitions of "State and "Central Government" read with the definition of "State Government," the Lieutenant Governor of the State was the proper party to be sued. The Government of Vindhya Pradesh meant the Lieutenant Governor only by an amendment made in 1954 in the Vindhya Pradesh General Clauses Act. Since the contract in question was entered into by the Government of Vindhya Pradesh and could not be construed as a contract with the Central Government, see 1955-1 S C R 549 : (AIR 1954 S C 587) the suit had to be brought against the State of Vindhya Pradesh, and the State was the proper authority to be named under S. 79 (b) of the Code. In addition to this, there was the Act called the Government of Part C States Act, and under S. 38 (2) of that Act, all executive action of a Part C State was to be expressed to be taken in the name of the Lieutenant Governor and the executive power of the Government was to be exercised by him, including the grant, sale, disposition or mortgage etc., of any property held for the purposes of the State. The combined effect of all these provisions was to constitute the Part C State of Vindhya Pradesh into a separate State, and under Art. 239, the administration of it was to be done by the President through such person, as he notified. Under the notification, the Lieutenant Governor was appointed as the person to discharge the functions under O. 27 and under S. 32 (2) of the Government of Part C States Act he exercised the executive power of Government. The Government of the State of Vindhya Pradesh entered into the contract with the plaintiffs in respect of the property of the State. The definitions to which we have referred, made the State the proper authority to be sued, even though the State Government was defined in the General Clauses Act as the Central Government, because the definition of "Central Government" takes us to the Lieutenant Governor, and from the Lieutenant Governor, we go to the State. In this view of the matter, S. 79(a) of the Code, which says that in a suit by or against the Central Government, the proper plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, is the Union of India, does not apply to a Part C State, and only the definition in cl. (b) of the section applies to this State, even though a Part C State, In our opinion, therefore, the decision of the Judicial Commissioner was correct.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. In view of this notification, the Lieutenant Governor became the proper authority under O. 27 of theCode of Civil Procedure. By virtue of the definitions of "State and "Central Government" read with the definition of "State Government," the Lieutenant Governor of the State was the proper party to be sued. The Government of Vindhya Pradesh meant the Lieutenant Governor only by an amendment made in 1954 in the Vindhya Pradesh General Clauses Act. Since the contract in question was entered into by the Government of Vindhya Pradesh and could not be construed as a contract with the Central Government, see 1955-1 S C R 549 : (AIR 1954 S C 587) the suit had to be brought against the State of Vindhya Pradesh, and the State was the proper authority to be named under S. 79 (b) of the Code. In addition to this, there was the Act called the Government of Part C States Act, and under S. 38 (2) of that Act, all executive action of a Part C State was to be expressed to be taken in the name of the Lieutenant Governor and the executive power of the Government was to be exercised by him, including the grant, sale, disposition or mortgage etc., of any property held for the purposes of the State. The combined effect of all these provisions was to constitute the Part C State of Vindhya Pradesh into a separate State, and under Art. 239, the administration of it was to be done by the President through such person, as he notified. Under the notification, the Lieutenant Governor was appointed as the person to discharge the functions under O. 27 and under S. 32 (2) of the Government of Part C States Act he exercised the executive power of Government. The Government of the State of Vindhya Pradesh entered into the contract with the plaintiffs in respect of the property of the State. The definitions to which we have referred, made the State the proper authority to be sued, even though the State Government was defined in the General Clauses Act as the Central Government, because the definition of "Central Government" takes us to the Lieutenant Governor, and from the Lieutenant Governor, we go to the State. In this view of the matter, S. 79(a) of the Code, which says that in a suit by or against the Central Government, the proper plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, is the Union of India, does not apply to a Part C State, and only the definition in cl. (b) of the section applies to this State, even though a Part C State, In our opinion, therefore, the decision of the Judicial Commissioner was correct.