Statutory authority and sovereign immunity limit liability for official acts, while privileged government publications defeat libel claims.

A statutory notification can validly empower a District Magistrate to cancel a local agent's licence where supervision conditions are breached, and that cancellation was upheld. The same relaxation, however, did not authorise the Magistrate to close a depot to recruiting under the Act, so that order was ultra vires. On State liability, tort claims for acts done by public servants under sovereign powers were not maintainable merely on employment grounds or ineffective ratification, and no liability for unliquidated damages was established. The alleged libel in an official Government order also failed because the publication was treated as privileged, absent proof of malice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Magistrate had power under the statutory notification to cancel the local agent's licence and whether the order of dismissal was valid; (ii) Whether the order closing the depot to recruiting was within power; (iii) Whether the Secretary of State was liable in damages for the alleged tortious acts of public servants acting under sovereign powers and whether there was effective ratification; (iv) Whether the alleged libel in the Government order gave rise to a maintainable claim.

Issue (i): Whether the District Magistrate had power under the statutory notification to cancel the local agent's licence and whether the order of dismissal was valid.

Analysis: The statutory relaxation under the notification reserved to the District Magistrate a power to cancel the local agent's licence where due supervision was not exercised. That condition was treated as necessary and proper under the enabling provision, and the dismissal was found to fall within the authority conferred by the scheme of the Act and notification.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the local agent was held valid and not open to objection.

Issue (ii): Whether the order closing the depot to recruiting was within power.

Analysis: The depot served both the local agent under the relaxed conditions and garden sirdars recruiting under the ordinary statutory regime. The relaxation did not deprive employers of the right to recruit in accordance with the Act without taking the concessions. The District Magistrate therefore could not shut the depot to recruiting under the Act merely because of the special arrangement.

Conclusion: The order closing the depot to recruiting was held ultra vires.

Issue (iii): Whether the Secretary of State was liable in damages for the alleged tortious acts of public servants acting under sovereign powers and whether there was effective ratification.

Analysis: Liability of the Secretary of State was treated as no greater than that of the former East India Company. The authorities were read as distinguishing acts done in the exercise of sovereign powers or under colour of municipal law from private acts of employment. The impugned acts were not shown to have been ordered or ratified in a legally effective manner, and the Court held that there was no sufficient basis for fastening liability on the Secretary of State for unliquidated damages in tort.

Conclusion: The claim for damages against the Secretary of State on this footing failed.

Issue (iv): Whether the alleged libel in the Government order gave rise to a maintainable claim.

Analysis: The publication was made by Government in the course of its official duty. On the materials, no maintainable action lay against the defendant unless the publication was shown to have been made under the Secretary of State's authority or ratified by him, and in any event the publication was treated as absolutely privileged, or at least qualifiedly privileged, absent proof of malice.

Conclusion: The libel claim was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The suit failed in substance because only the cancellation of the local agent's licence was upheld, while the closure order was invalid but no actionable liability was established against the defendant on either the tort or libel claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability for acts done by public servants under sovereign statutory authority does not arise merely because the acts were committed in the course of employment or because of an ineffective ratification; official publications made in the discharge of duty are protected by privilege absent malice.

---