LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus B. N. PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' ' 397 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. v. B. N. PRASAD December 9, 1977 IS. MURTAZA fAzAL Au AND JASWANT SINGH. JJ.] Railway Act, 1882, s. 138-Wllt'tller envisages any particular perso1i hold- ing u particular post be authorised to file a c:o111p/aint-Interpre1atio11 of s. 138. A complaint u/s 138 of the Railways Act was filed by the Dy. Chief Commercial Superintendent N. F. llailway to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for pa!i:sing an order of eviction of the respondent, a refreshment room contractor at Kishang:unj Station, as he failed to hand over possession after the expiry ot the ;.1greemcnt on 10-7-70 and in spite of notice to do so. The magistrate accep- ted the application and directed the eviction of the respondent. The respondent filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court that s. 138 could not be invoked as the complaint was not made by an authorised person i.e. the Chief Commer· cfr1l. Superintendent. The High Court accepted the plea, allowed the writ Peti- tion and quashed the order of eviction. Allo,ving the appeal by special leave the Court : HELD : (1) S. 138 of the Railways Act must be construed liberally, broadly and meaningfully so as to advance the object sought to be achieved by the Rail"';iys Act, as the provision is in public interest meant to avoid inconvenience and expense for the travelling puhlic and gear up the efficiency of the Raihvay administration. [399 A 1 l2) Section 138 has widest amplitude and takes within its fold not only a raiJv.,;J_y servant but even a contractor who is engaged for performing services to the railway and the termination of his contract by the Railway amounts to A B c D his discharge. [398 H, 399 A] E J\i'anik Awatrui Clw.i11a11i v. Union of India, r 19711 1 SCR 650, folloV11ed. S. L. Kapoor v. E111peror, A.J.R. 1937 Lahore 547, R. L. Mazun1dar v. Alfred Erni:H, ,.\.LR. 1959 Cal. 64; referred to. (3) S. 138 only requires that an application should be made by or on behalf of the railway administration. It does not require that any particular per~cn holding a p•:·rticular post -.hou\d he authori~ed to .file a compldint. [399 A-BJ F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1972. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgement and Order dated 29-Jl-!97i ot the Patna High Court in Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 25/71. U. R. Lalit and Girislz C/umdra for the Appellant. G D. P. Mukherjee. A. K. Ganguli and Mrs. E. Udayarathnam for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAzAL Au, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 29-~1-1971 _by .which .the H High Court has quashed an order of the magistrate, d1rectmg the res- pondent to be evicted from the railway premises. The appeal ari5's in the following circumstances : A B 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1978] 2 S.C.R. .The. resp?ndent was a contractor employed by the railway for sup- plymg food m the refreshment room at Kishanganj station. The last agreement signed with the contractor is dated 10-7-1967 which expfred on .10-7-1970. Thereafter, a notice was given by th~ railway admrmstrahon to the respondent for vacating the premises and as he failed to do so, a complaint under s. 138 of the Indian R~ilways Act was filed by the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent N.F. Rail- way to the Sub-divisional magistrate for passing an order in terms of s. 138 of the Railways Act. The magistrate accepted the application and directed the eviction of the respondent. . The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court, mainly on the ground that s. 138 could not be invoked as the com- plaint was not made by an authorized person. It was alleged in the •C ,petition befoce the High Court that the complaint made by the Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent, was not maintainable, as it should have been filed by the Chief Commercial Superintendent, according to the provisions of the Railways Act. This plea appears to have found favour with the High Court which allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of eviction. :n Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. U. R. Lalit submitted a short point before us. He argued thats. 138 does not require that the complainant should be specifically authorized by the Railways in order to make a complaint maintainable. All that section 138 requires is that the application should be filed on behalf of the railway adminis- t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.