STATE OF BIHAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 522 · Decided: 19-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

522 
STATE OF BDIAR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
September 19, 1969 
[M. lIIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, 
G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Art. 131-Private party whether can be implec.d· 
ed in a suit under Article-Article is meant to settle only disputes between 
parties memioned in els. (a) (h) and (c)-Court can give 'declaratory 
decree simpliciter. 
The State of Bihar filed a number of suits in this Court under Art. 
-131 of the Constitution in connection with the delayed delivery of iron 
and steel materials for its Gandak project. In six of the suits the defen-
dants were: The Union of India (Defendant No. 1) and Hindustan Steel 
Ltd. (Defendant No. 2). 
In six other suits the defendants were: The 
Union of India (Defendant No. 1) and The Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 
(Defendant No. 2). The prayers in all the suits were that decrees for 
specific •urns of mJney be passed either against the Union of India or the 
second defendant. 
Identical preliminary issues were set down folr consi· 
deration in all the suits, namely : (I) whether the cause or causes of action 
in this suit a.re within the scope of Art. 13! of the Constitution? (2) 
\'ibether the suit is within the scope of Art. J.31 of the Constitution in 
view of a non-State viz. defendant No. 2, having been made a party to 
the suit? (3) Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of s. 80 C.P.C. 
for want of notice to defendant No. 1. 
HELD: (i) The specification of the parties in Art. 131 is not of the 
inclusive kind. The express words in els. (a), (b) and (c) of the Article 
exclude the idea of a private citizen, a firm or a corporation figuring as a 
disputant either alone olr even along with a State or with the Government 
of India in the category of a party to the dispute. 'I he contents of the 
corresponding section, of the Government of India Act, 
1935 namely 
s. 204, and the legislative history culminating in the adoption of Art. 131 
of the Constitution support the oonclusion that so far as the parties to 
a dispute are concerned, the framers of the Constitution did intend that 
they could only be the constituent units of the Union of India and the 
Government ot India itself arrayed on one side or the other either singly 
or jointly with another unit or the Government of India. For other types 
of controversies or disputes special provision has been made in the sonsti-
tution e.g. in Art. 143 257, 262 and 290 A dispute in which ~private 
party is involved must be brought before a court other than thts Court 
having jurisdiction over the matter. [526 D-F; 530 B; 531 C, F, H; 532 
Cl 
The United Provinces v. 
The Governor-General in Council, 
(1939] 
F.C.R. 124 and State of Seraikella and Others v. 
Union of India and 
anothei', [151] S.C.R. 474, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The enlarged definition .of 'State' given in Parts III and IV of the Consti-
tution is not attracted to Mt. 131 of the Constitution and a body like the 
Hindustan Steel Ltd. could not be considered to be "a State" for the pur-
H 
pose of Art. 131 of the Constitution. [532 GJ 
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, [1967] 3 S.C.R. 377, 
distinguished. 
A 
B 
c 
BrHAR STATE v. UNION (Mitter, J.) 
523 
In view of the above finding on issue No. 2 the suits did not lie in this 
Court under Art. 131 of the Constitution and the plaints must be lreturned; 
it \\'S.S accordingly unnecessary to decide issues Nos. 1 and 3. [532 H] 
Article 131 does not prescltibe that a suit must be filed in the Supreme 
Court for the complete adjudication of the dispute envisaged therein or the 
passing of a decree capable of execution ~n the ordinary. way ~ de:rees of 
other courts are. 
Once this· Court has given a declaration of its rights to 
the aggrieved party the function of the Court under Art. 131 is over. [525 
C-FJ 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Misc. Petitions Nos. 512, 513, 
574 & 575, 578 & 579, 581 & 582, 583 & 584, 587 & 588, 605 
& 606, 609 & 610 and 1466 and 1467 of 1969. 
Applications by defendant No. 1 for rejection of plaints and 
for stay of the hearing of tit> suits. 
Original suits Nos. 3 of 1967, 1 and 3 to 9 of 1968. 
Petitions under Art. 131 of the Constitution of India. 
Niren De, Attarney-General, V. A. Seyid Muhammad and 
D 
B. D. Sharma, for respondent No. l (in all the suits). 
D. N. Gupta, for defendant No. 2 (in suits Nos. 3 to 8 of 
1968). 
D. N. Mukherjee, for defendant No. 2 (in suits Nos. 3 of 1967, 
I and 9
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.