Rup Lal Singh vs Secretary of State for India

Mullick, A.C.J.

The native officer is directed by paragraph 3 of Section 3 of the Regulation to provide the troops with whatever bearers, boatmen, carts and bullocks may be necessary to prosecute their route. The next paragraph empowers him in case of difficulty to seek the assistance of the nearest police officer who is to afford his aid in providing the number of persons and of carts and bullocks required. The section does not in terms empower the native officer or the police to impress any carts or bullocks against the will of their owner but it is obvious that this is intended. It is not necessary here to consider whether private carts can be seized; but as regards carts ordinarily let out on hire it is impossible to conceive that when a regiment is on the line of march the refusal of the owner would be sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the officer concerned. That could not have been intended by Section 3 having regard to the object for which it was enacted. This is made clearer by comparison with Section 8 which relates to the supply of carts, etc., to military officers not commanding or proceeding with a corps or detachment and to other persons passing through the country. The third paragraph of this section, by implication, empowers the police officer to impress carts kept for hire and to compel bearers and boatmen who are accustomed to act as such to undertake such involuntary service. From this it would appear that in the case of regiments on the march it is certainly open to the native officer or the police officer to impress carts or bullocks which are ordinarily let out for hire.

It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the Regulation could not have intended to empower the native officer to use means which were contrary to law and thereby encroach upon the liberty of the subject. But the answer to this is that when a statute confers a power it implies that the donee of that power shall be competent to do all that is needful for its exercise subject to the limitation that he cannot go beyond what is reasonable. If, in order to carry out the law, he does something which the Courts consider in the circumstances unreasonable, he will be guilty of a tort. The answer, therefore, to the: question put by the learned Subordinate Judge, in my opinion, is in the affirmative.

Kulwant Sahay, J.

I agree that in case of carts let on hire, the native and police officer referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section 3, Clause 1, of the Regulation can legally impress them against the consent of their owner.