RAMCHANDRAM
RICE & OIL MILLS LTD. V. THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER
AIR
1943 Pat 408
FACTS
OF THE CASE -
1. The
plaintiff company - Ramchandram Rice & Oil Mills Ltd.- had despatched
hundred of canistersfull of mustard oil, which was manufactured by them and
sold under their brand. These canisters were lying at the Purulia railway
station for delivery to the customer.
2. After
about 400 tins had been delivered to the customer, the defendant (the Municipal
Commissioners) applied under the Municipal Act for the issue of a search
warrant on the ground that the said oil was contaminated and emitted a bad odour.
3. On
the same day, the Sanitary Inspector of Purulia Municipality along with the defendants
went to the railway station yard to detain the mustard oil and in spite of the
protests made by the plaintiff company agent that the oil was pure and meant
for human consumption, they detained the oil canisters.
4. On
the next day, the 600 tins of mustard oil at the railway yard were carried away
in the municipal motor truck which is used for carrying rubbish, road-sweeping
and other filthy matters. The tins of mustard oil, which were really meant for
human consumption were loaded in the truck by sweepers (mehtars).
5. Samples
of the oil were taken and sent to a Government analyst, who found the oil to be
genuine.
6. Owing
to the mala fide action on the part of the sanitary inspector, the plaintiff
suffered a huge loss in as much as its customers refused to buy the said
mustard oil on the ground that they had been carried in Municipal vehicle which
was used to carry rubbish and consequently the oil had become unconsumable.
LEGAL
ISSUES –
A. Will
the act of the Defendant i.e. Municipal Commissioner protected for being a
statutory duty and hence no liability lies against him?
B. Are
the Commissioners allowed to exercise their authority in a capricious, wanton
and an oppressive manner?
DECISION
–
The
principle of law is that if a person is exercising his rights under a statute
he is not liable unless it is proved that he acted unreasonably or negligently.
The fact remains that the defendants in their alleged zeal to perform duty
acted very hastily, and in their haste they took steps which led to the seizure
of the and the despatch of the oil from the station in a scavengers' truck. The
question then arises as to whether the action of the municipality was
reasonable and negligent and caused loss to the plaintiff. Evidences suggest
that the oil was carried in a scavenger's truck loaded by Mehtars, as a result
of which the plaintiff could not sell the oil at its proper price. The action
of the municipality, if not actuated by malice or as a result of a conspiracy,
was certainly very unreasonable and negligent. There were other methods
available, by which the same object could have been attained. But, the one
execution that the municipality adopted does make them liable for the loss that
the plaintiff suffered. The municipality is liable for the negligent acts of
its agents.
CONCLUSION
-
The
honourable High Court observed that although it is thoroughly well established
that no action will lie for doing thatwhich the Legislature has authorized,the
party causing it will be liable if he does not take reasonable precautions to
prevent damage resulting therefrom. Though exempt from the absolute liability
which would attach to a person not acting under statutory powers, he is still
liable if he exercises his powers negligently or unreasonably.
If
any litigant executes any form of legal process which is invalid for want of
jurisdiction, irregularity, or any other reason, and in so doing he commits any
act in the nature of trespass to person or property, he is liable therefore in
an action of trespass, and it is not necessary to prove any malice or want of
reasonable or probable cause. This is an application of the fundamental
principle that mistake, however honest or inevitable, is no defence for him who
intentionally interferes with the person or property of another. A supposed
justification is no justification at all. Alitigant who effects an arrest or
seizes property must justify the trespass by pleading a valid execution of
legal process, and any irregularity or error which has the effect of making the
process invalid will deprive him of all justification.
PRECEDENTS
-
1. David
v. Proprietors of the Reservoir, 1878 3 AC 430
2. Mayor
v. Annois, 1902 AC 213
3. Nagar
Narsi v. The Municipality, (1920) 12 Bom. 490
4. Rup
Lal Singh v. Secretary of State, AIR 1926 Pat 258
0 Comments