Suits by or Against the Government or the Public Officers in Their Official Capacity
All the three provisions; Section 79, 80, and order 27 which bring back light the varied procedures and rules involved within the suit by or against the govt or a public officer are discussed and analysed intimately. It is often said that the applicability of those sections must be determined by the law because it stands. Further, if the procedure lay down by the rule out these sections isn’t followed, then the court is to proceed with the footing that there’s no appearance of state pleader on behalf of the general public officer. And lastly, the principles laid down so as 27 are to be strictly abided by while filing a suit.
In addition to all or any the above-mentioned aspects, the sections regarding suits by or against the govt and public officers also specify the procedure to be followed while filing of a writ and also what steps to be taken when there’s permanent suit on appeal or if theirs is a revision.
There is also mention of the character and applicability of Section 80 of the civil procedure code, and this section drags its attention towards the matter whether the serving of notice may be a mere formality or is it a compulsory aspect under the section. Lastly, the section also deals with the aspect of what acts come under stage of official capacity.
Section 80 of the Code, says that 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 the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of concerned department of the Government. The section further clarifies that no suit shall be instituted against the Government or against a public officer until a statutory notice required by the section is served.
A notice under Section 80 must contain
- name, description and place of residence of the person giving notice;
- ii. a statement of the cause of action; and
- iii. Relief claimed by him.
State of Rajasthan v. Jaipur Hosiery Mills, in this case, it was held that the “sanction to sign must be prior to the institution, and if not complied with this, the signing shall be by an incompetent person, and further, issuing of a retrospective sanction will not preserve the defect.”
Lutfar Rahman v. State of West Bengal. In the aforementioned case, it was held that “when a person other than the government pleader wants to act as an agent, it is possible only when the government agent intimates the Court that the former is acting under his directions.”
“The notice is required to convey to its recipients, sufficient information to enable him to consider the claim” which was held in Union of India v. Shankar Stores.