Facts of the Case
A Government Department, acting under statutory powers, confiscated certain perishable goods belonging to a citizen during an investigation for an alleged offence. The goods were kept in official custody for a considerable period. Due to negligent handling and delay, the perishable goods deteriorated and ultimately perished. After completion of the investigation, it was found that no offence had been committed by the citizen. As a result, the confiscation was unjustified. The citizen now seeks to claim damages from the Government for the loss caused due to wrongful seizure and negligent custody of goods.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the confiscation of perishable goods without proving an offence is lawful.
- Whether the Government can be held liable for negligence resulting in loss of property.
- Whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity protects the Government in such cases.
- Whether the citizen has a right to claim compensation or damages.
Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements
Under Administrative Law, the State is liable for tortious acts committed in non-sovereign functions. Custody and preservation of seized property is an administrative function, not a sovereign one. Once goods are seized, the authority becomes a bailee and owes a duty of reasonable care.
In State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam (1967), the Supreme Court held that where seized goods were lost or destroyed due to negligence and no offence was established, the State was liable to compensate the owner. Similarly, in Nilabati Behera v. State of Odisha (1993), the Court affirmed that the State is accountable for violation of rights due to negligent acts of its officials.
Article 300 of the Constitution of India enables citizens to sue the Government for tortious liability. Arbitrary confiscation and negligent handling also violate Article 300A, which protects the right to property.
Possible Judgement
The court is likely to hold that the Government is liable to compensate the citizen for the loss of perishable goods. Since no offence was proved and the goods perished due to negligent custody, the confiscation cannot be justified. The defence of sovereign immunity would not apply, as preservation of seized property is a non-sovereign administrative function. The citizen can successfully sue for damages, and the court may direct payment of monetary compensation for the loss suffered.
About lawgnan
Administrative Law questions on government liability, confiscation, and compensation are frequently asked in LLB and judiciary exams. Understanding the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions is crucial for writing high-scoring answers. For more exam-oriented Administrative Law problem answers, landmark case laws, writ remedies, and simplified legal explanations, visit lawgana.in. LawGana is designed specifically for Indian law students preparing for LLB, judiciary, and competitive examinations. Follow lawgana.in to strengthen your concepts and master answer-writing techniques.
