Legal Provisions Regarding Suits by or against Government or Public Officer

Sections 79 to 82, and Rules 1 to 8-B of Order 27 deal with suits by or against Government or Public Officers.

Sec. 79 explains the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant as the case may be, shall be-

(a) In the case of a suit by or against Central Government, the Union of India, and

Image Source: lgcnsblog.com

(b) In the case of a suit by or against a State Government concerned State.

This section only provide for the authority by or against whom a suit can be instituted while Section 80 names the particular person to whom a notice could be addressed or a suit can be filed.

Sec. 80 Notice:

No suit shall be instituted against the Government or against a Public Officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of-

(a) In the case of a suit against the Central Government, Secretary to Government of concerned department;

(b) In case of a suit against Central Government, relating to Railways, the General Manager of that Railway;

(c) in case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised by that Government in this behalf;

(d) In the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the District.

Section 80(2):

Provides Dispense with Notice. A suit to obtain urgent relief against Government may be filed without notice as required by Sec. 80(1) by the leave of the Court.

Section 80(3):

Stipulates that no suit against Government or Public Officer shall be dismissed merely by reason of any defect in notice referring to description of party or cause of action.

Scope of Sections 79 and 80:

Section 79 and 80 enact only the rules of procedure and do not in any manner affect the claims and liabilities enforceable by or against the Government. The claims and liabilities against Government are determined in accordance with the provision of Arts. 294 to 300 of Constitution.

Section 80 deals with two classes of cases:

1. Suits against Governments; and

2. Suits against public officer in respect of acts purporting to be done by these public officers m their official capacity.

With regard to the first class of cases, the notice must be given in all cases but with regard to the second class of cases notice is necessary only where the suit is in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity. The expression act also includes illegal omissions.

In Pukraj vs. State of Rajasthan, the public official of State of Rajasthan used defamative language and assaulted the petitioner, the Court held that these acts do not fall under scope Sec. 80 hence a suit, can be filed without notice.

Object:

The object of Notice under Sec. 80, C.P.C. is to give the Government or the Public Servant concerned an opportunity to reconsider its or his legal position and if that course is justified, to make amendments or settle the claim out of Court. It is intended to alert the Government to negotiate a just settlement or atleast have the Courtesy to call the aggrieved person why the claim is being resisted.

Essential requirements of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C.

In considering whether the mandatory provisions of the Code are complied with, the Court must ask the following questions in each case-

1. Whether the name, description and residence of the plaintiff are given so as to enable the authorities to identify the person serving the notice;

2. Whether the cause of action and the relief which the Plaintiff claims are set out with sufficient particularly;

3. Whether the notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the appropriate authority mentioned in the section; and

4. Whether the suit is instituted after expiration of the two months next after notice has been served, and the plaint contains a statement that such a notice has been so delivered or left.

Construction of Notice:

The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Suryanarayana, held that, if on a reasonable reading, but not so as to make undue assumptions, the plaintiff is shown to have given the information which the statute requires him to give, any incidental defects or error may be ignored, in compliance of Sec. 80(1) C.P.C.