Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Nextly, it was also argued by Sri Bhat that plea of limitation by public authority to defeat just claim of citizen came to be deprecated by the Supreme Court in a decision in Madras Port Trust v Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V. Venkatadri (dead) by L.Rs.

15. While taking me through the aforesaid decisions, Sri Bhat had also pointed out that in the said decision, the Apex Court held that the Government and the Public Authorities should not take up technical pleas for the purpose of defeating the legitimate claims of the citizens and by so holding, the Supreme Court had also allowed the just claim of a party, no matter that in law he was not entitled to claim the same.

28. The learned Counsel for the appellant had cited before me a decision of this Court in Rathnam's case, supra, wherein this Court had held that where the work was completed in the year 1950 and when the final bill was prepared on 16-10-1963, the suit filed for recovery of the value of the work done by the contractor on 4-4-1990 held to be within time. Though the said decision is not totally applicable to the case in hand, it appears to me that the ratio thereof is applicable to the same. Sri Bhat had also cited before me a reported decision in Madras Port Trust's case, supra, wherein in similar situation, the Supreme Court while abhorring the attitude of a public authority, under the Madras Port Trust Act for taking up technical plea of limitation observed therein that the technical plea should be taken only when the claim is not well-founded. In para 2 of the judgment, the Supreme Court had held as hereunder:

"2. We do not think that this is a fit case where we should proceed to determine whether the claim of the respondent was barred by Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (II of 1905). The plea of limitation based on this section is one which the Court always looks upon with disfavour and it is unfortunate that a public authority like the Port Trust should, in all morality and justice, take up such a plea to defeat a just claim of the citizen. It is high time that Governments and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. Of course, if a Government or a public authority takes up a technical plea, the Court has to decide it and if the plea is well-founded, it has to be upheld by the Court, but what we feel is that such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public authority, unless of course the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of resisting such a claim has become unavailable. Here, it is obvious that the claim of the respondent was a just claim supported as it was by the recommendation of the Assistant Collector of Customs and hence in the exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution, we do not see any reason why we should proceed to hear this appeal and adjudicate upon the plea of the appellant based on Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act (II of 1905)".

29. From the above, it is clear that the Supreme Court had come down heavily on the public authorities in avoiding legitimate claim of the citizens by raising technical pleas such as limitation. Having gone through the said decision in Madras Port Trust's case, supra, I also feel that the ratio of the decision is equally applicable to the case in hand for the respondents in the instant case also raised only technical plea of bar of claim particularly when they admitted the claim of the appellant and it is for that reason that the respondent 1 had addressed a letter-Ex. P. 2 to the Assistant Executive Engineer as above and further admittedly addressed the respondent 2 for approval to clear the claims. On going through the said decision one may observe that the Supreme Court in allowing the above claim of the citizen had exercised its discretion vested in it under Article 136 of the Constitution, overruled the technical pleas of limitation raised by a public authority, the Madras Port Trust.