Indian Minerals Mining Co. Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [ k.h. subba rao,; m. hidayatullah and; r.s. bachawat, jj.] the owner of a vehicle entrusted it to a for plying as a taxi. a drove the taxi, collected the fares, met the expenditure and handed the balance with accounts to the owner. b who used to clean the taxi was either employed by the owner or on his behalf by a. presumably because a wanted another to assist him in driving the taxi he trained b to drive the vehicle and took b for obtaining a licensed for driving. while taking the test b caused bodily injury to the respondent. at the time of the accident, a was not present in the vehicle. on the question whether the owner was liable, held: (per hidayatullah and bachawatt, jj.) the owner was not liable. there is a presumption that a vehicle is driven on the master's business and by his authorised agent or servant but the presumption can be met. it was negatived in this case. the acts of a and b viewed separately or collectively were not within the scope of their respective or even joint employment. the evidence did not disclose that the owner had employed b to drive the taxi or given him permission to drive the taxi or had asked him to take test for obtaining a driving licence; nor did it disclose that that the owner had given any authority to a to employ strangers to drive the taxi or to take the driving test. a was not present in the vehicle .so that he could be said to be in control on behalf of his employer when the vehicle was driven. for the master's liability to arise, the act must be a wrongful act authorised by the master or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master. the driver of a car taking the car on the master's business makes him vicariously liable if he commits an accident. but it is equally well-settled that if the servant, at the time of the accident, is not acting within the course of his employment but is doing something for himself the master is not liable. rule in storey v. aston, (1868-69) 4 q.b.d. 476, by cockburn c.j., applied. case law referred to. an agent could make the principal liable only for acts done within the scope of the. agent's authority or under the actual control of the principal. the extension of the doctrine that the act of the servant or the agent must be for the master's benefit, is not correct. it is doubtful whether the principle can be extended by the. introduction of the doctrine of implied authority. smith v. martin, [1911] 2 k.b. 775 and barwick v. english joint stock bank, (1867) l. 2 ex. 259, doubted. per (subba rao, j. dissenting) : the owner was liable. a was not a mere driver of the vehicle but was the owner's manager to carry on the business of running his taxi. a was, therefore, given the authority to do all things, necessary to keep the taxi in a good condition and to run it effectively, and if for plying the taxi throughout day and night and during the absence of a an assistant was necessary to drive the vehicle, a could employ one. a employed b with the approval of the owner to keep the vehicle in good condition. a in the interest of the employer instead of engaging a third party as an assistant driver trained b as such and sought to obtain a licence for him. therefore, a did not exceed the authority conferred on him by the owner in employing b as a servant and permitting him to drive the vehicle in order to obtain a licence for assisting him as a driver. case law referred to.  order1. indian minerals mining co., which holds a mining lease for marble and limestone within the mussorie belt of the dehradun district from the u.p. government has applied to this court for permission to remove and appropriate the minerals already excavated order dated august 23, 1984 in civil misc. petition no. 312 of 1984 in writ petition no. 8209 of 1983. by it from the leasehold area. the committee appointed by this court by order dated january 5, 1984, has reported that in this mine operations have been stopped with effect from august 20, 1983, on the orders of this court and at the site of the mine 178.35 metric tonne of marble and 42 metric tonne of limestone were lying on january 31, 1984 when the committee inspected the mine. when quarrying was probihited, restriction was also imposed on transport of the minerals. the losses has applied for permission for removal of the stock faced at the site on the ground that long storage would adversely affect the material to its prejudice and keeping watch on the 1 stock involves heavy financial burden.2. mr. ramamurthi for the petitioner and mr. sibal for the state of u.p. have opposed the application. mr. ramamurthi's objection is based on the remakes of the committee to the following effect :it appeared to the committee that some recent excavations had 1 taken place which had led to the accumulation of additional materialand relying on this, he contended that the lessee should not be allowed to remove and appropriate materials excavated in violation of the court's order. he maintained that an application for action for 2 contempt has been filed. that application, if already made, has to be disposed of on its merit. we are of the view that the removal of the material excavated should not be detained on that score. mr. sibal objected to removal of the stock of marble on the plea that there was no lease in respect of marble. mr. lekhi for the lessee has produced a 2 copy of the lease deed of the year 1980 which covers marble also. the objection on behalf of the state of u.p. has therefore no force.3. even if removal and appropriation of the materials to the extent indicated above is to be permitted, we are of the view that it must be strictly regulated and it has to be ensured that under the pretext of 3 removal of the stock further mining is not done. with a view to ensuring that the removal is limited to the quantities specified by the committee and that no further mining or excavation is done by the lessee, we appoint a committee consisting of the director of geology (mines) posted at dehradun and the additional district magistrate 3 of dehradun. this committee shall ensure strict compliance of our direction in the matter of removal of the stock referred to above. the entire operation has to be completed within 15 days commencing from august 27, 1984. the lessee shall intimate to the director of geology (mines) on behalf of the committee its programme of removal 4 and the operation shall be carried out under the control and supervision of the committee. the loading of the trucks shall take place in the presence of a representative of the committee not below the rank of the deputy director of geology (mines) and a register shall be caused to be maintained by the committee in which shall be entered 4 the numbers of the trucks and the quantity of material removed by each truck. the necessary police assistance shall be afforded by the superintendent of police, dehradun, as and when requisitioned.4. a report shall be furnished to this court by the committee within one week of completion of the operation. copies of this order shall 5 be forwarded immediately by the registry to the director of geology (mines), the additional district magistrate and the superintendent of police and copies shall also be supplied to mr. lekhi for the lessee, mr. ramamurthi for the petitioner and mr. sibal for the state of u.p.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Indian Minerals Mining Co., which holds a mining lease for marble and limestone within the Mussorie belt of the Dehradun District from the U.P. Government has applied to this Court for permission to remove and appropriate the minerals already excavated Order dated August 23, 1984 in Civil Misc. Petition No. 312 of 1984 in Writ Petition No. 8209 of 1983. by it from the leasehold area. The Committee appointed by this Court by order dated January 5, 1984, has reported that in this mine operations have been stopped with effect from August 20, 1983, on the orders of this Court and at the site of the mine 178.35 metric tonne of marble and 42 metric tonne of limestone were lying on January 31, 1984 when the Committee inspected the mine. When quarrying was probihited, restriction was also imposed on transport of the minerals. The losses has applied for permission for removal of the stock faced at the site on the ground that long storage would adversely affect the material to its prejudice and keeping watch on the 1 stock involves heavy financial burden.

2. Mr. Ramamurthi for the petitioner and Mr. Sibal for the State of U.P. have opposed the application. Mr. Ramamurthi's objection is based on the remakes of the Committee to the following effect :

It appeared to the Committee that some recent excavations had 1 taken place which had led to the accumulation of additional material

and relying on this, he contended that the lessee should not be allowed to remove and appropriate materials excavated in violation of the Court's order. He maintained that an application for action for 2 contempt has been filed. That application, if already made, has to be disposed of on its merit. We are of the view that the removal of the material excavated should not be detained on that score. Mr. Sibal objected to removal of the stock of marble on the plea that there was no lease in respect of marble. Mr. Lekhi for the lessee has produced a 2 copy of the lease deed of the year 1980 which covers marble also. The objection on behalf of the State of U.P. has therefore no force.

3. Even if removal and appropriation of the materials to the extent indicated above is to be permitted, we are of the view that it must be strictly regulated and it has to be ensured that under the pretext of 3 removal of the stock further mining is not done. With a view to ensuring that the removal is limited to the quantities specified by the Committee and that no further mining or excavation is done by the lessee, we appoint a Committee consisting of the Director of Geology (Mines) posted at Dehradun and the Additional District Magistrate 3 of Dehradun. This Committee shall ensure strict compliance of our direction in the matter of removal of the stock referred to above. The entire operation has to be completed within 15 days commencing from August 27, 1984. The lessee shall intimate to the Director of Geology (Mines) on behalf of the Committee its programme of removal 4 and the operation shall be carried out under the control and supervision of the Committee. The loading of the trucks shall take place in the presence of a representative of the committee not below the rank of the Deputy Director of Geology (Mines) and a register shall be caused to be maintained by the Committee in which shall be entered 4 the numbers of the trucks and the quantity of material removed by each truck. The necessary police assistance shall be afforded by the Superintendent of police, Dehradun, as and when requisitioned.

4. A report shall be furnished to this Court by the Committee within one week of completion of the operation. Copies of this order shall 5 be forwarded immediately by the Registry to the Director of Geology (Mines), the Additional District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police and copies shall also be supplied to Mr. Lekhi for the lessee, Mr. Ramamurthi for the petitioner and Mr. Sibal for the State of U.P.