TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (7) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mber, 1953, when a permit was issued to him the price of paddy went down to Rs. 35 per bag. In this manner the plaintiff has suffered loss of Rs. 1,500 which he would have got as profit had he transported the 150 bags in time to Sathur. On these allegations, the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,535-4-0 against the State of Madras represented by the Collector of Tanjore. The case for the defendant is: On a reference made by the Board of Revenue, the Government apprehended that there was evasion of payment of sales tax due to the Government by merchants exporting clandestinely large stocks of paddy and rice without exhibiting the transactions in their accounts. They therefore sent a letter No. 97398 N/52-5 (Revenue Department) dated 10th August, 1953, to the Chief Operating Superintendent, Southern Railway, Madras, that paddy or rice should not be booked from any station unless the consignor produced permit issued by the Commercial Tax Officer as proof of payment of sales tax on the turnover of the goods. They also directed the Board of Revenue to take immediate action to prescribe the export permits to be produced by the exporting merchants and to issue suitable i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st be described only as an honest error of judgment and that he was acting bona fide within the scope of his authority (a finding of fact based upon acceptable and relevant evidence and after a careful analysis which could not be challenged before us) and that Government could not in any way be made responsible for any loss that might have been occasioned to the defendant. The law regarding misperformance of quasi-judicial powers by administrative officers as contra-distinguished from judicial officers protected by the judicial Officers Protection Act (Act 18 of 1850) is the same in England, United States of America and India, and has been fully discussed in Thangavelu Mudaliar v. V.N. Manickam (S.A. No. 1030 of 1956) by me and can be gathered from the following standard treatises: Kameswara Rao "Laws of Damages and Compensation", 2nd Edn., Ch. 31, pp. 1002 and the following; S. Ramaswami Iyer, "The Law of Torts", 5th Edn., pp. 676-678; Harper's Law of Torts, U.S.A., p. 666 and the following; Restatement of the Law of Torts, Vol. IV, Division Eleven, Ch. 42, p. 395 and the following, U.S.A.; Clark and Lindsell (n Torts, 11th Edn., p. 164, U.K. The Government is not responsibl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tly immune, for he will then be doing what the law bids him to do, and no one can be liable for doing anything which the law authorises him to do. If a person charged with the execution of a statute honestly intends to put the law in motion, and really and not unreasonably believes in the existence of facts, which, if existent, would justify his acting and acts accordingly, his conduct will be in pursuance of the statute and will be protected: Dhandu v. Secretary of State of India17 I.C. 673. following Herman v. Sencheal[1862] 3 L.L.J. 43.: and Spooner v. Juddow4 M.I.A. 353. In cases falling under class (ii) where the officer overshoots his mark and does anything in excess of or beyond the scope of his authority, whether negligently or maliciously, the protection afforded by law vanishes, for the acts complained of will be wholly illegal and ultra vires. "An officer representing the Sovereign, Civil and Military, may be made to answer for an abuse of his authority, and for the exercise of arbitrary power above and beyond the law. An act of authority lawful in itself, if rightfully done, may become wholly unlawful and unjustifiable by the harsh, oppressive and cruel manner in which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, C.J., in Raghunatha Rao v. Nathamuni Tatamayyangar[1871] 6 M.H.C.R. 423. does not mean a groundless belief formed from ignorance or rashness. The belief must be entertained in good faith. The term is meant to require an honest persuasion formed, after fair enquiry and consideration, upon what might mistakenly either in point of law or fact, be considered a reasonable and probable ground by a person possessing ordinary qualifications for the office held by him and sought to be made liable. The belief must appear to have been trustworthy to his mind. A belief cannot be said to have the quality of trustworthiness unless it rested upon some probable foundation for it in the judgment of a man of ordinary capacities. In short, bona fides does not protect an officer who does not act with due care and attention and the mere absence of mala fides is not a good defence: Ammappa Mudali v. Muhammad 2 M.H.C.R. 443. , Rohini Kumar's case . Thus, the law enjoins upon an officer the duty to be careful and cautious in the discharge of his official duties. His immunity will fail if the power or discretion conferred by a statute is not exercised bona fide or in good faith and in accordance with....