THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus MST. VIDHYAWATI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 989 · Decided: 02-02-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
989 
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
MST. VIDHYAWATI AND ANOTHER 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAII, 
J.C. SHAH and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Tort-Suit for damages-Liability of State for tortious aci of 
its Bervant acting as such-Con•titution of India, Arts. 300 (I), 
294, 295-Government of India, Act 1935 (25 and 26 Geo. v. C. 
42) s. 176 (1)-Gavernment of India Act, 1915 (5 & 6 Geo. 
V. C. 61), s. 32-Government of India Act, 1858 (21 and· 22 
Victoria Ch. U.V. 1)" a. 65. 
The respondent l's husband and father of minor respon-
dent 2 was on February 11, 1952, knocked down by a Govern-
ment jeep car rashly and negligently driven by an employee 
of the State of Rajasthan, while being taken from the repair 
shop to the Collector'• resodence, 
and mbsequently died in 
hospita'. On a •uit by the respondents for damages, the trial 
court decreed the same exparte as against the driver but dis-
missed it as against the State, holding that a• the car was be-
ing maintained for ~he use of the Collector, in discharge of 
his official duties, even though it was not being used for arty 
purposes of the State at the time of the occurrence, that was 
sufficient to absolve th" State of any vicarious liability as the 
employer. The High Court on appeal, disagreoiug with the 
trial court, decreed the suit as against the State as well. 
Held, that the liability of the State for d images in 
respect of a tortious act committed by its · servant within the 
scope of his employment and functioning as such was the same 
as that of any other employer. 
The relevant provisions for determining the.extent of 
that liability were not those contained in Arts. 294 and 295 
which were primarily concerned with the devolution of rights, 
assets and Iiabili ties but those of Art. 3o0 ( 1) of the Constitu-
tion, which by using the expression "in like cases" in its second 
part defined the extent of t!1at liability and referred back to 
the legal position obtaining before the promulgation of the 
Constitution. 
Article 300 (1), read in the light of s. 176 (l) of the 
Government of India Act of 1935 , s. 32 of the Government 
of India Act, 1915, ,md s. 65 of the Government oflndia Act, 
1858, left no manner of doubt that ihe extent of the liability 
of a State must be :lie same as · that of the East India Com-
pany as decided by the Supreme Court of Calcutta, in the 
case of Peninw.lar "nd- Onental Steam Navigation Co. v. The 
· SecrefJl,ry of State for ,India. 
l~6S 
F eiruar.v 2. 
IHI 
T/t, St.t,.f 
Rojutltan 
•• 
Msl. Vidriyawah 
990 SUPBEME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
Ptnin.na1ar and Oriental Buam N avi4alion Co. "· Tht. 
l'lecrda'rg of 8'attfor India, (1868-69) 5 Born. 
H. C.R. 1, 
approved. 
R•gard beln11: had to the stai:ies by which the State of 
RaJa<than wu ultimately formed, it was not possible in order 
to 'udl!'o the Hability of that State under Art, 300 (1) to go 
lvvond the last stall:O of inte11:T3tion leading to the formation 
of the Rajasthan Union on the eve of the Constitution and 
that l.'nion would be the corresponding State as contempla-
terl by the Article. 
Jn the ahsence therefore, of any law pro-
vidino otherwise, the Union of Rajasthan, just as the Domin-. 
Ion of India or anv of its constituent providences, would be 
vicarioW1ly liable for the acts of its servant. 
Viewed fmm the stand-point of the first principle., tbe 
conch,,ion could not be otherwise. Ever since the days of the 
P.ast India Companv, the Sovereil!ll was held liable to be sued 
In tort or in contract and the En11l!.h Common law immunity 
as it existed in F.neland before the enactment of Crown Pro-
r.•din"' Act. 1947, never operated in India. With the advent 
of the Constitutfon and ina1111uration of th• Republic with a 
vi•w to "tabli<hincr a Sociali•tic State with its varied indust-
rial and oth-r activitiC' •ncrai:?in11: larire numben of employeeo 
thrrc rould ~ no iu~tifi,_ation, in principle or public iritett~t, 
that the State •hould not be held vicariowly liahle for the 
tortious acts of it:s servant~. 
Stat• of Rihar v.-Abdul Majir1, 02541 S.C.R. 786, re-
rferred to 
As neither the Parli .. ment nor any State Legislature had 
thou11ht fit to rnact tlny law on the matter, a right saved by 
hv Art, 300 of the Comtitution,.the law must continue to be 
the same as it had been since the days of the East India 
Companv. · 
Crvn. APPRLLATE JURISDIOTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 263 of 1 !l."i8. 
Appsl from the judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.