IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 22 of 2008()
1. SRI.SAYED MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.A.JOSEPH, AGED 70 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. LISSY BABU, POST BOX NO.20366,
3. ALEX.C.JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,
4. ABRAHAM.C.JOSEPH, CHEKKATTU HOUSE,
5. SHERIN MARY JOSEPH,
6. DAIZY STEVENSON,
For Petitioner :SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN
For Respondent :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :20/06/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.No.22 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 20th June, 2008.
O R D E R
Petitioner is the sixth defendant in O.S.No.55 of 2001,
on the file of the Sub Judge, Thiruvalla. First respondent is the
plaintiff. The suit was instituted for realisation of Rs.1,29,250/= as
damages. Petitioner in the written statement disputed the
maintainability of the suit relying on Sections 128 and 158 of the
Customs Act. Under order dated 14.7.2006, learned Sub Judge found
that suit is maintainable, rejecting the objection taken by the
petitioner under Section 155(1) of the Customs Act. It is challenged in
this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent were heard.
3. Section 155 (1) of the Customs Act reads as
follows:-
CRP.No.22/2008
2
“155. Protection of action taken under the Act –
(1) No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings
shall lie against the Central Government or any officer
of the Government or a local authority for anything
which is done, or intended to be done in good faith, in
pursuance of this Act or the rules or regulations.”
4. Under the said section, a suit will not lie against the
Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local
authority for anything which is done or intend to be done in good
faith in pursuance of the Customs Act or the Rules or Regulations
framed thereunder. True, Sub-section (1) of Section 155 of the
Customs Act protects the Central Government, as well as any officer of
the Central Government for any act done in pursuance of the Act, or
the rules or the regulations, provided, the act done was in good faith.
In the plaint, it was alleged that the act done was malafide. The
question whether the act done was bonafide or malafide could be
decided only on the evidence to be recorded. In such circumstances,
without evidence, it cannot be held that suit will not lie, as the act is
bonafide. Therefore, suit cannot be dismissed as not maintainable, as
sought for. The question whether the act was bonafide or not is to be
CRP.No.22/2008
3
decided by the court on the evidence to be recorded. Petition is
dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
nj.