# UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. B. N. PRASAD

- **Citation:** [1978] 2 S.C.R. 397
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1977-12-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1972
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-and-anr-v-b-n-prasad-7386
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

' '
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 holding 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 accepted 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 Petition 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

## Text

' '
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 holding 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 accepted 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 Petition 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 respondent 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 supplymg 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. Railway 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 complaint 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 administration.
There can be no doubt that the appellant was a high officer
of the railway administration and, therefore, in a position to file
an
E
application for eviction on behalf of the railway administration. Section
138 runs thus :-
"lf a railway servant is dischargc<l or suspended from his
office, or dies, absconds or absents himself, and he or his
wife or widow, or any of his family representatives, refuses
or neglects, after notice in writing for that purpose to deliver
up to the railway administration, or to a person appointed by
the railway administration in
this
behalf, any station,
dwelling-house, office or other building with its appurtenances.
or any books, papers or other matters, belonging to the
railway administration and in the possession or custody of
such railway servant at the occurrence of any such even as
aforesaid, any Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of
the
first class may, on application made by or on behalf of the
railway administration, order any police-officer, with proper
assistance, to enter upon the building and ·remove any person
found therein and take possession thereof, or to take possession of the books, papers, or other matters, and to deliver
the same to the railway administration or a person appointed
by the railway administration in that behalf."
In our opinion, a close perusal of this section ckarly reveals that
the provision has widest amplitude and take~ within its fold not onlr a
railway servant but even a contractor who 1s engaged for performmg
UNION V. B. N. PRASAD (FAZAL Ali, J.)
399
services to the railway, and the termination of his contract by the RailA
way amounts to his discharge, as mentioned in s. 138.
As the provision is in public interest meant to avoid incoovenience and expense to
the travelling public and gear up the efficiency of the railway administration, it must be construed liberally, broadly and meaningfully, so
as to advance the object sought to be achieved by the Railway Act.
Furthermore, the section only requires that an application should be
made by or on behalf of the railway administration. The section does
Bnot require that any particular person hading a particular post, shoulcl
be authorized to file a complaint.
The matter was considered by this
Court in Nanik Awatrai Chainani v.
Union of India('), where this
Court pointed out, while relying on decisions of the Lahore and Calcutta
High Courts that the appellant in the case was a railway servant, and an
order of eviction could be passed against him. This court relied on the
definition of the railway servant as contai~d in section 8 (7) read with
C
s. 148(2) of the Act.
The Court approved of the decision in S. L.
Kapoor v. Emperor( 2)
and R. L. Mazumdar v. Alfred Ernest(3),
which had taken the view that even a contractor is a railway servant
within the meaning of s. 138. In this connection, this Court observed :
"The terms which govern the parties expressly reserve to
the railway administration extensive power of directing and
regulating the appellant's work and also to an extent, of controlling the manner of doing the work. Keeping in view the
purpose and object of these agreements, namely,
that of
affording necessary amenities to the travelling public, retention
of this over-all power by the railway administration is not only
appropriate but necessary.
The retention of this power by
the railway administration, in our· view, constitutes relevant
material for sustaining the conclusion of the courts below that
the appellant is a railway servant, as defined in s. 3 (7) read
with s. 148(2), Indian Railways Act, against whom action
can be taken under s. 138 of the said Act."
This court' went to the extent of holding that such a servant in view of
the precarious contract under which he had entered in the Railway
service was not governed by art. 311.
In the case of S. L Kapoor v.
Emperor (supra), the following observations were made:-
"The termination of his service by the railway under
cl. 21 of the agreement amounts to his discharge within the
meaning of s. 138 of the Act, and he is therefore liable to
dispossession of the premises which he was occupying as a
servant of the railway."
As already indicated, this case was approved by this Court in the
~
decision mentiooed above.
In this view of the matter, it is manifest
(l) [197!] (I) S.C.R. 650.
(2) A.LR. 1937 Lahore 547.
(3) A.T.R. 1959 Cal. 64.
D
E
F
G
K
A
.B
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 2 S.C.R.
that the High Court has taken an erroneous view of law in thrnwing
out the complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Commercial Superinte.1dent
on the ground that he was not authorized to file the complaint.
hen
on the other question whether or not the respondent was a rh'lway
s(:rvant, as pointed out, the matter is no longer res integra and is con·
eluded by the decision of this Court referred to above.
For the'c
reasons, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court is set
aside and that of the sub-divisional magistrate is restored.
S.R.
Appeal ullu1red.