1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 32 of l969 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry is the appellant herein.
2. The suit was instituted by the Appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,63,180 on the following allegations:
3. The appellant became the successful bidder on 18th December, 1963, for toddy shop No. 1 of Villianur Commune for a duration of there years from 1st January, 1964 against sum of Rupees Forty-five thousand and five hundred and eighty three per year and the toddy shop had worked well during the year, 1964 and taxes due to the Government have been fully and regularly paid; as per order dated 14th April, 1965, the Government has declared the licencee as deprived of his right of auction and ordered the closing of his shop for the reason that he has not paid the taxes for the months of March and April, 1965 and that he had committed several petty offences; really the Government had intended at any cost to bring the appellant to ruin and even to make him quit the Pondicherry State because he was not willing to bow before some people; on 16th April 1965, the Contribution Department had affixed seal on the shop; on the 17th of the same month, on the order of the Chief of Contributions Department, the employees of the Department, accompanied by policemen and military men have effected the removal by some tree climbers of the pots of toddy and got the spathes out and damaged; on appeal by him, the High Court of Judicature, Madras, has by its appellate judgment dated 30th April, 1965 quashed the order dated 14th April, 1965; following notification of the said appellate judgment, the Government has got the seals removed from the shop; but it had not been possible to run the shop after the cutting of the spathes as there was no production of toddy; the appellant had sustained heavy losses through the illegal acts of the Department; and he had hurt his business, lost enormous sums paid to the owners of the trees, those paid to the workers and his own profit. It is on these allegations he put forward a claim of Rs. 1,63,180/- as compensation.
4. To this suit, he had impleadcd the following as defendants; (1) The Lt. Governor representing the State of Pondicherry and representing the President of the Republic of India; (2) The Chief of Contributions Department of the Pondicherry State; and (3) The Secretary, Finance Department, Pondicherry State.
5. The defendants put forward a number of defences to which it is unnecessary to refer in view of the narrow compass within which we propose to dispose of the appeal, and ultimately the learned Second Additional District Judge dismissed the suit. It is against this dismissal the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff is the suit.
As soon as the learned Counsel for the appellant opened the appeal, we asked the learned his claim for compensation from the three defendants to the suit as mentioned above. The learned Counsel represented that the applellant was string only the Government of Pondicherry for commpensation for the damage done to him by the illegal acts of the officers of the Pondicherry Government. We pointed out to him that the impleading of the defendants did not indicate that the appellant was suing the Government of Pondicherry and on the other hand, it would give an impression that the appellant was suing the three defendants personally. In fact, the plaint itself shows that the appellant was suing the three defendants in their respective capacities as indicated in the cause title itself. If so, the appellant was not certainly suing the Government of Pondicherry. If the intention of the appellant was to sue the Government of Pondicherry, he had not impleaded the Government of Pondicherry as a defendant as prescribed by law.
6. In this contest, it is necessary to refer to the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. Article 300 of the Constitution deals with suits and proceedings and Clause (1) of the said Article states:
(1) The Government of India may sue. or be sued by the name of the Union of India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State and may, subject to any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted.
7. There is a separate part in the Constitution namely Part VIII dealing with the Union, Territories. Article 239 is one of the Articles included in that part. Clause (1) of Article 239 states:
(1) Save as otherwise provided by Parliament by law, every Union Territory shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through an administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify.
8. The Parliament has enacted the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, i.e., Central Act XX of 1963. Section 55 of this Act deals with contracts and suits.
This section states:
For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that--
(a) all contracts in connection with the administration of a Union Territory are contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union;
(b) alls suits and proceedings in connection with the administration of a Union Territory shall be instituted by or against the Government of India.
Thus, it is clear that in a suit connected with the administration of a Union Territory like Pondicherry, the party to be impleaded is the Government of India. But in this case, as we pointed out already, the first defendant is the Lt. Governor representing the State of Pondicherry and representing the President of the Republic of India. Even the learned Counsel for the appellant had to admit that the Chief of Contributions Department, State of Pondicherry (the second defendant) and the Finance Secretary of the Government of Pondicherry (third defendant) certainly were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit because the appellant did not claim any relief against them and he was claiming relief only against the Government of Pondicherry.
9. Therefore, the only question that really has to be considered is whether the proper party has been impleaded when the appellant impleaded the Lt. Governor representing the State Pondicherry and representing the President of the Republic of India as the first defendant.
10. From what we have indicated above from the provisions of the Constitution and the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, the proper party should have been the Government of India and certainly the Government of India had not been impleaded as a party to the suit. In view of the fact that the proper party against whom the appellant claimed relief had not been impleaded as a party to the suit, the suit could not have been proceeded with against the defendants who were actually impleaded to the suit. Hence, whatever may be the merits of the claim of the appellant herein, since the appellant could not claim any relief against the three defendants whom he had impleaded as parties to the suit. even if he had succeeded in establishing his case, the suit by the appellant was rightly dismissed though for different reasons. In view of this the appeal fails and is dismissed. But, there will be no order as to costs.