Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. It has next to be seen whether that liability of the former State of Madhya Pradesh is in respect of "an actionable wrong other than breach of contract." Now the term "actionable wrong" has not been defined in the Act; there is, therefore, no reason to give it a restricted meaning. We find useful guidance to construe this term in the majority view of their lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Tripura v. Province of East Bengal [1951 S.C.R. 1] wherein their lordship have construed an identical term "liability in respect of an actionable wrong other than breach of control" appearing in Art. 10 of the Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947. The problems with which the said order dealt with are similar to the problems dealt with in the Act. It is a matter of history that in the year 1947 India was partitioned into two Dominions, India and Pakistan. An Act to make provision for the setting up in India of the independent Dominions of India and Pakistan, was passed by Parliament (Indian Independence Act, 1947). Under the provisions of this Act from the appointed day, i.e., 15 August, 1947, the former province of Bengal ceased to exist and its territories were divided into two new provinces to be known respectively as East Bengal and West Bengal. East Bengal formed part of the Dominion of Pakistan whereas West Bengal formed part of the Dominion of India. Section 9 of the Indian Independence Act empowered the Governor-General to make such provision by order as appears to him to be necessary and expedient for bringing the provisions of this Act into effective operation in respect of various matters mentioned therein. In exercise of the power conferred on him by S. 9, the Governor-General of India made an Order known as "The Indian Independence (Rights, Property and Liabilities) Order, 1947." Articles 10 of this order inter alia deals with apportionment of the liabilities of the former Province of Bengal in respect of an actionable wrong other than breach of contract between its two new successor provinces of East and West Bengal.

"... The learned Judges have placed much too narrow a construction on the phrase 'liability in respect of an actionable wrong.' They have assumed that the phrase connotes only a liability for damages for a completed tortious Act ... The intention being thus to provide for the initial distribution of rights, property and liabilities as between the two Dominions and their Provinces, a wide and liberal construction, as far as the language used would admit, should be placed upon the terms of the order, so as to leave no gap or lacuna in relation to the matters sought to be provided for. There is no reason, accordingly, why the words 'liability in respect of an actionable wrong' should be understood in the restricted sense of liability for damages for completed tortious acts. We consider that the words are apt to cover the liability to be restrained by injunction from completing what on the plaintiff's case was an illegal or unauthorized act already commenced."

Expressing himself on the same question, Mukherjee, J., observed :

"... The High Court took the view that the expression 'actionable wrong other than a breach of contract' is synonymous with 'tort.' It has held that the act complained of cannot be a tortious act and even if it is so, no action would lie upon it, it being an established proposition of law that the State is not answerable for any tortious acts of its officers done in the course of official duties imposed by a statute. It seems to me that the learned Judges have attached a narrow and somewhat restricted meaning to the words of the article mentioned above and that the plain language of the provision read in the light of the context would demand and justify a wider and more liberal interpretation. In my opinion, there can be an actionable wrong which does not arise out of a breach of contract and at the same time does not answer to the description of a 'tort' as it is understood in English law; and if the plaintiff's allegations are correct, it is an actionable wrong precisely of that types which we have in the present case.

The word 'wrong' in ordinary legal language means and signifies 'privation of right.' An act is wrongful if it infrings the legal right of another, and actionable means nothing else than that it affords grounds for action in law."

The meaning of the term "actionable wrong" deducible from this decisions in our opinion is an illegal or unauthorized act infringing a legal right of another affording him a ground for action in law. It cannot be doubted that a citizen of India is entitled to protections and guarantees are infringed, it amounts to illegal and unauthorized act infringing the right of a citizen. He is on that ground entitled to protection at the hands of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Here the petitioners, who are citizens of India, are challenging the orders of their dismissal on the ground of infringement of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. For reason stated above the wrong complained of by the petitioners in all the cases is, in our opinion, an actionable wrong within the meaning of S. 88 of the Act. As already stated, the liability to redress this wrong was initially the liability of the former State of Madhya Pradesh.