Case: State of Kerala Vs. General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras

to a railway, the General Manager of that railway. The above provision clearly contemplates institution of a suit against the Central Government even though it relates to a rail way. A suit against the Central Government in terms of section 79 of the Code would necessarily have to be brought against the Union of India.5. The Act no doubt makes provision for the liability of the railway ad ministration, but from that it does not follow that the railway administration is a separate legal entity having a juristic personality capable of being sued as such. The definition of "railway administration" in section 3(6) of the Act that it would mean the Manager of the railway does not warrant the inference that a suit against the railway administration can be brought against the Manager of that railway. We have to bear in mind the distinction between the owner of the railway, namely, the Union of India, and the authority which actually runs the railway and to whom duties have been assigned for this purpose by the Act. The manager of the railway under the Act is such authority. When, however, liability is sought to be fastened on the railway administration and a suit is brought against it on that account, the suit, in our opinion, would have to be brought against the Union of India because it is the Union who owns the railway and who would have the funds to satisfy the claim in case decree is awarded in such suit.6. The scheme of the Act, even though there are now hardly any company-owned railways in India, is to treat different railway administrations as different units, although all of them may be owned by the Union of India. Neither the definition of the "railway administration" in section 3(6) of the Act nor the language of sections 72 to 80 of the Act lends support for the view that the railway administrations are to be treated as separate personalities, entities or separate juridical persons as seems to have been observed in the case of Dominion India v. Firm Museram Kishunprasad (A.I.R. (1950) Nagpur 85). Yet the treatment of the different railway administrations as different units for the purpose of fastening liability on the Union of India has got significance and relevance. Viewed in that light, it would follow that the definition of the "railway administration" given in section 3(6) of the Act does not make the railway administration or its General Manager a legal entity or a corporate body or a juridical person to represent the railway administration as such in suits. The claim in a suit for recovery of money under the Act against the different railway administrations owned by the Central Government in accordance with the general principle of law contained in Order 1 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure has got to be made against the person against whom the right to relief is alleged to exist. The significance of creating the various railway administrations as separate units, even though they may be State owned, is to be found in section 80 of the Act, and section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For claiming a decree against the Union of India under the Act the plaintiff has got to specify the railway administration or administrations on ac count of which liability is sought to be fastened upon the Union of India, as contemplated by section 80 of the Act. The institution of the suit has to be preceded by service of notice under section 77 of the Act and section 80 of the Code to the appropriate authority which is the General Manager of the railway concerned. The requirement of clause (b) of section 80 of the Code that a notice in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway must go to the General Manager of the concerned railway or railways is also based upon the assumption that it is primarily the liability of the railway administration of the said railway or railways to satisfy the claim of the suitor in accordance with section 80 of the Act. The demarcation of the different State-owned railways as distinct units for administrative and fiscal purposes cannot have the effect of conferring the status of juridical person upon the respective railway administrations or their General Managers for the purpose of civil suits.7. The Bombay High Court in two cases, Sukhanand Shamlal v. Oudh & Rohilkhand Railway (A.I.R. 1924 Bombay 306.) and Hirachand Succaram Gandhy & Ors. v. G.I.P. Railway Co. (A.I.R. 1928 Bombay 421.) has held that a suit against a State railway should be brought against the Government. Similar view was pressed by Patna High Court in Shaikh Elahi Bakhsh v. E.I. Railway, Administration (A-I.R. 1931 Patna 326.) and a Full Bench of Assam High Court in the case Chandra Mohan Saha & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (A.I.R. 1953 Assam 193.) The observations of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of P.R. Narayanaswami lyer & Ors. v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1960 Madras 58) also lend support to the above view. It may be stated that the reasoning employed in the eases mentioned above was different and not identical, but whatever might be the nature of that reasoning the fact remains that the learned Judges deciding those cases were all at one on the point that such a suit should be brought against the Government, which means in the present case the Union of India. Any contrary view would be against the well-established practice and procedure of law, as evidenced by various decisions of the High Courts, and as such, must be rejected.Submission has also been made on behalf of the appellant that the High Court should have allowed the appellant to amend the plaint. We agree with the High Court that the present is not an appropriate case in which permission to amend the plaint should have been granted.8.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]The above argument has the quality of being ingenious, attractive and not lacking in apparent plausibility. A closer examination, however, reveals its infirmity and after giving the matter our earnest consideration, we find it difficult to accept it. The Act deals with and specifies, inter alia, the rights and liabilities which arise in case the goods consigned to the railways are not delivered to theAct no doubt makes provision for the liability of the railway ad ministration, but from that it does not follow that the railway administration is a separate legal entity having a juristic personality capable of being sued as such. The definition of "railway administration" in section 3(6) of the Act that it would mean the Manager of the railway does not warrant the inference that a suit against the railway administration can be brought against the Manager of that railway. We have to bear in mind the distinction between the owner of the railway, namely, the Union of India, and the authority which actually runs the railway and to whom duties have been assigned for this purpose by the Act. The manager of the railway under the Act is such authority. When, however, liability is sought to be fastened on the railway administration and a suit is brought against it on that account, the suit, in our opinion, would have to be brought against the Union of India because it is the Union who owns the railway and who would have the funds to satisfy the claim in case decree is awarded in suchclaiming a decree against the Union of India under the Act the plaintiff has got to specify the railway administration or administrations on ac count of which liability is sought to be fastened upon the Union of India, as contemplated by section 80 of the Act. The institution of the suit has to be preceded by service of notice under section 77 of the Act and section 80 of the Code to the appropriate authority which is the General Manager of the railway concerned. The requirement of clause (b) of section 80 of the Code that a notice in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a railway must go to the General Manager of the concerned railway or railways is also based upon the assumption that it is primarily the liability of the railway administration of the said railway or railways to satisfy the claim of the suitor in accordance with section 80 of the Act. The demarcation of the different State-owned railways as distinct units for administrative and fiscal purposes cannot have the effect of conferring the status of juridical person upon the respective railway administrations or their General Managers for the purpose of civilBombay High Court in two cases, Sukhanand Shamlal v. Oudh & Rohilkhand Railway (A.I.R. 1924 Bombay 306.) and Hirachand Succaram Gandhy & Ors. v. G.I.P. Railway Co. (A.I.R. 1928 Bombay 421.) has held that a suit against a State railway should be brought against the Government. Similar view was pressed by Patna High Court in Shaikh Elahi Bakhsh v. E.I. Railway, Administration (A-I.R. 1931 Patna 326.) and a Full Bench of Assam High Court in the case Chandra Mohan Saha & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (A.I.R. 1953 Assam 193.) The observations of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of P.R. Narayanaswami lyer & Ors. v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1960 Madras 58) also lend support to the above view. It may be stated that the reasoning employed in the eases mentioned above was different and not identical, but whatever might be the nature of that reasoning the fact remains that the learned Judges deciding those cases were all at one on the point that such a suit should be brought against the Government, which means in the present case the Union of India. Any contrary view would be against the well-established practice and procedure of law, as evidenced by various decisions of the High Courts, and as such, must be rejected.Submission has also been made on behalf of the appellant that the High Court should have allowed the appellant to amend the plaint. We agree with the High Court that the present is not an appropriate case in which permission to amend the plaint should have been granted.