JAGANNATH AGARWALA versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 08-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

y 
I-
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
205 
any case the case has to go back to the Special Judge 
for re-framing the charges and there is time enough 
for the Government to consider whether it should 
accord sanction to the prosecution of the various 
accused for the non-cognizable offences alleged to have 
been committed by them in pursuance of conspiracy, 
assuming of course, that sanction is necessary. 
In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the 
order of the High Court and direct the Special Judge 
to frame fresh charges and proceed with the trial. 
The matter has been pending for a long time and we 
direct that the trial will proceed with all expedition. 
Appeal allowed. 
Retrial ordered. 
JAGANNATH AGARWALA 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
(J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Act of State-Duration of-State allowing claims to be prefer-
red and enquired into-Act of State, if at an end-Administration 
of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949, cl. 9. 
The appellant had two money claims against the Maharaja 
of. Mayurbhanj State. From January r, i949, the .State merged 
with the Provmce of Onssa. Clause 9 of the Admrn1stration of 
Mayurbhanj State Order, i949, promulgated by the Government 
of Orissa, provided f?r the iss';'ing of .a notification for calling 
upon all persons having pecuniary claims against the Maharaja 
to notify the same to an officer authorised in that behalf. After 
issue of the notification the appellant preferred his two claims 
before the Claims Officer. The Claims Officer made a report sub-
stantially accepting the claims. This report was submitted to the 
Member (third), Board of Revenue. Without giving the appel-
lant any hearing the claims were rejected on the ground that 
they were barred by limitation. The appellant applied for a 
review and submitted the documents 6n which he relied but 
again without giving the appellant a hearing the Board of Reve-
nue declined to review the matter. The appellant contended 
The State of 
A ndhra Pradesh 
v. 
Kandirnalla Sub~: 
baiah r§.. Another 
Mudholkar ]. 
z96z 
March 8. 
z96z 
Jagannath 
Agarwala 
v. 
State of Orissa 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962) 
that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice in 
the Board of Revenue deciding the matter without giving the 
appellant a proper hearing. The respondent contended that 
the rejection of the claims was an act of State, that the new 
Sovereign State could nol be compelled by the courts to accept 
the liability of the old Ruler, that though the new Sovereign 
State might make such enquiry as it chose it was not compelled 
to give a hearing to the appellant. The appellant replied that 
the act of State was over when the claims were invited and 
accepted by the Claims Officer. 
Held, that the rejection of the claims was an act of State 
and could not be challenged. Unless the new Sovereign, either 
expressly or impliedly, admitted the claims, the municipal courts 
had no jurisdiction in the matter. The act of State did not 
come to an end when Government allowed the claims to be pre-
ferred or the Claims Officer made his report. The enquiry was 
for the benefit of the State and not for conferring rights on the 
claimants. Till there was an acceptance of the claims by the 
Government or some officer who could be said to bind the 
Government, the act of State was still open. 
Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 
[1959] S.C.R. 729, State of Saurashtra v. Memon Haji Ismail Haji, 
[1960] l S.C.R. 537 and Vaje Singh Ji Joravar Singh v. S.cretary 
of State for India, (1924) L.R. 51 I.A. 357, relied on. 
CrVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
666 and 667 of 1957. 
N. C. Chatterjee and G. C. Mathur, for the appel-
lant. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, K. N. Rajagopala Sastri 
and T. M. Sen, for the respondents. 
1961. March 8. 
The judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Hidayatullah J. 
HIDAYATULLAH, J.-These "two appeals raise a 
common question of law, and it is convenient to deal 
with them together. They have been filed (with 
certificate) against a judgment of the High Court of 
Orissa, by Jagannath Agarwala, who sought to enforce 
a claim he had against the former State of Mayur-
bhauj and the ex-Ruler of Mayurbhanj. They arise out 
of two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, 
for writs of mandamus, etc., which the High Court of 
Orissa dismissed by its order under appeal. 
It appears that in the year 1943 the Maharaja of 
• 
·• 
..... 
-
1 S.C.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.