Section 80 CPC

Section 80 CPC makes it necessary to send a notice before taking legal action against the government or a public officer to seek compensation for harm caused by the government or the officer while performing their official duties.

Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) requires that you must wait for two months after sending the notice to the government or public officer before you can file a lawsuit. This two-month period allows the official time to respond to the notice. This section aims to encourage peaceful and timely resolution of issues by giving officials a chance to address the matter.

Notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908

When individuals sue each other, they don’t have to give notice before going to court. However, Section 80 of the Code says that when someone wants to file a lawsuit against the Government or a public officer for something they did in their official role, they must first give written notice.

Section 80 specifies that you can’t start a lawsuit against the Government or a public officer for their official actions until two months have passed after you’ve delivered a written notice to:

• If it’s a lawsuit against the Central Government (except for railway matters), you should send the notice to the Secretary of that Government.
• If it’s a lawsuit against the Central Government related to a railway, you send the notice to the General Manager of that railway.
• If it’s a lawsuit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, send it to the Chief Secretary of that Government or an authorised officer.
• If it’s a lawsuit against any other state Government, you send the notice to the Secretary of that Government or the Collector of the district.
• If it’s a lawsuit against a public officer, you send the notice to that public officer.

However, there’s an exception. If you urgently need relief, you can go to court without giving notice, but you must get permission from the court to do so. If the court finds that there’s no urgent need, they will return your lawsuit filing.

Section 80 of the CPC

1  Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suits 3 shall be instituted against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir)] 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

(a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, except where it relates to a railway a Secretary to that Government;

6(b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that railway;

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

(c) in the case of a suit against 8[any other State Government], a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district; and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.

11(2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (I); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be , a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit:

Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1).

(3) No suit 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 shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (I), if in such notice

(a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1), and

(b) the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated.

What Is Section 80 of the CPC?

Section 80 of CPC mandates the issuance of a notice to the government or a public officer before filing a lawsuit against them for certain types of claims. This notice serves as a formal communication to inform the government or public officer of the intent to sue and provides them with an opportunity to address the matter before it proceeds to court.

The Code of Civil Procedure is a set of rules for handling civil legal matters in India. Section 80 of the CPC focuses on the requirement for providing notice before taking legal action. This notice is mandatory and applies to two main types of cases:

• Suits against the government.
• Suits against public officers for actions performed in their official capacity or actions that appear to be done in their official capacity.

Section 80 consists of three sub-sections:

• The first sub-section explains who should receive and where to deliver the notice.
• The second sub-section addresses special situations where notice may not be necessary, such as emergencies.
• The third sub-section outlines the specific requirements for the content of the notice.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Chander Kant, it was established that notice must be given in all cases falling under the first category (suits against the government). However, in the second category (suits against public officers), notice is only required when the lawsuit pertains to an action performed by the public officer as part of their official duties, not for other situations.

In the case of State of Madras v. Chitturi Venkata Durga Prasadrao, two interpretations of the phrase “act purporting to be done” were discussed. One interpretation suggests that it encompasses both past and future actions, while the other, based on idiomatic language usage, restricts it to past actions.

Section 80 of the CPC, 1908, has three key subsections that outline the requirements for sending a notice before filing a lawsuit against the government or a public officer:

Section 80(1): Notice Delivery

According to this subsection, the notice should be delivered to specific offices based on the category of the case:

• For suits against the Central Government (except for railway matters), the notice should be delivered to or left at the office of the Secretary to that government.
• If the suit relates to railways under the Central Government, the notice should be delivered to or left at the office of the General Manager of that railway.
• In the case of the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the notice should be sent to the office of the Chief Secretary to that government or any authorised officer.
• For suits against any other state government, the notice should be sent to the office of the Secretary to that government or the Collector of the district.

In the case of a public officer, the notice should be delivered to them at their office. The notice must specify the cause of action, the plaintiff’s name, description, place of residence and the relief sought. The lawsuit itself should also mention that such notice has been delivered or left.

Section 80(2): Exception for Urgent Relief

This subsection provides an exception to Section 80(1). It allows the court to hear a suit that seeks urgent or immediate relief against the government if the plaintiff can show a reasonable cause for such urgency. If the court is satisfied with the grounds for urgent relief, it proceeds with the case. However, if the court finds no sufficient reason for immediate relief, it returns the lawsuit for presentation later, after complying with the requirements of Section 80(1).

Section 80(3): Basic Notice Requirements

This subsection outlines the fundamental requirements for the notice. If these requirements are met, the suit cannot be set aside due to minor errors or defects in the notice. The basic notice requirements include:

• Clearly identifying the plaintiff’s name, description and residence to allow for easy identification of the person sending the notice.
• Confirming that the notice was delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in Section 80(1).
• Providing a clear indication of the cause of action and the relief sought by the plaintiff.

Objective of Section 80 IPC

The main objective of Section 80 of the CPC is to provide an opportunity for the government or a public officer to assess the legal situation and potentially resolve the claim brought by the prospective plaintiff if it is deemed just and reasonable. Unlike private parties, the government is expected to objectively consider the matter and make an informed decision within two months, often with the assistance of legal advice. This approach saves both public money and time and serves the public interest.

The legislative intent behind this provision is to prevent unnecessary litigation and the wastage of public funds. Section 80 guides the government and public officers to engage in negotiations for valid claims and settle them without resorting to an unreasonable stance that could lead to needless expenditure from the public treasury.

Institution of Suit without Notice against Government or Public Officer

Section 80(2) serves as an exception to Section 80(1). It allows a plaintiff to file a lawsuit seeking urgent and immediate relief without serving a notice, provided that they obtain permission from the court. The most crucial condition outlined in Section 80(2) pertains to the urgency of the matter.

When the court is convinced that urgent relief is necessary and the plaintiff cannot wait for the notice period to elapse, the court can grant permission for the plaintiff to initiate a lawsuit against the government without serving the notice as required by Section 80(1). In such cases where the court grants this permission, the plaintiff can proceed with the lawsuit without waiting for the notice period.

Important Points

Sec. 80 CPC is mandatory

Section 80 of the CPC is considered mandatory and its provisions must be strictly followed. Failure to serve a notice two months prior to initiating a lawsuit can lead to the dismissal of the suit. This has been upheld in several legal cases, including:

• B.R. Sinha vs. State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 1256 (Three Judge Bench).
• The State of A.P. vs. G.V. Suryanarayana, AIR 1965 SC 11.
• Dominion of India vs. Purshottam Das, AIR 1961 All 176.

Urgency of the matter to be relevant consideration for grant of leave u/s. 80 CPC

In cases where a plaintiff seeks to file a lawsuit without serving notice under Section 80(2) of the CPC, the urgency of the matter is a relevant consideration for the court to grant leave. If the court believes there is no urgency or immediate relief cannot be granted, it may refuse to grant leave under Section 80(2) of the CPC. This principle is illustrated in the case of Islamia Junior High School vs. State of U.P., AIR 1986 All 92.

Contents or Requisites of notice u/s. 80 CPC

The notice sent under Section 80 of the CPC must contain specific requisites or contents, including:

• Providing the name, description and residence of the plaintiff in a way that allows authorities to identify the person sending the notice.
• Clearly setting out the cause of action and the relief sought by the plaintiff with sufficient particularity.
• Ensuring that a written notice has been delivered to or left at the office of the appropriate authority mentioned in the section.
• Filing the lawsuit after the expiration of two months following the notice’s delivery and including a statement in the plaint confirming that such notice has been served.

When interpreting the notice, the court should consider the legislative intent, which is to provide the government or public servant an opportunity to reevaluate their legal position. If the notice reasonably provides the information required by the statute, any minor defects or irregularities should be overlooked. This principle has been upheld in various cases, including Qamaruddin vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 All 169; B.R. Sinha vs. State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 1256 (Three Judge Bench); The State of A.P. vs. G.V. Suryanarayana, AIR 1965 SC 11; and Amar Nath Dogra vs. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 424 (Five Judge Bench).

Errors or Defects in Notice under Section 80 CPC

Not every minor error or defect in the notice served under Section 80 of the CPC is fatal to the case. Such venial (trivial) errors or defects should not be allowed to defeat a just claim. If, upon a reasonable reading of the notice and without making undue assumptions, it is evident that the plaintiff has provided the essential information required by the statute, any incidental defects or errors may be disregarded. This principle is affirmed in the case of The State of A.P. vs. G.V. Suryanarayana, AIR 1965 SC 11.

Mode of Interpretation of Notice under CPC

While it is crucial to strictly adhere to the terms of Section 80 of the CPC, this does not imply that the terms of the notice should be scrutinised in an overly pedantic or impractical manner. Common sense should be applied when interpreting notices under Section 80 CPC. Some degree of practicality and common sense must be employed in understanding these notices. This perspective is supported by cases such as State of Madras vs. C.P. Agencies, AIR 1960 SC 1309 and Dhian Singh Sobha Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 274.

Suit for Compensation Against Railway Administration and Section 80 CPC

Regarding suits for compensation against the railway administration, the Supreme Court has held that Union of India should be impleaded as a necessary party and the provisions of Section 80 CPC are applicable to such suits. This interpretation is based on Section 79 and Section 80 CPC. (See State of Kerala vs. G.M., Southern Railway, Madras, (1977) 1 SCR 419).

Non-Impleadment of State and Consequences

In cases where the State is not impleaded as a party in a lawsuit and the notice under Section 80 CPC is not served, it can have significant consequences. For instance, if a suit is brought by individuals, such as daughters of a Bhoomidhar, seeking a declaration that certain orders issued by authorities are illegal and the State is not impleaded as a party and the Section 80 notice is not served, the Supreme Court has held that the suit may not be maintainable. Non-impleadment of the State and failure to serve the Section 80 notice can impact the validity of the lawsuit, as demonstrated in the case of Sooraj vs. S.D.O., AIR 1995 SC 872.

Definition of Public Officer According to Section 2(17) of CPC

Section 2(17) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides a definition for “public officer,” which includes individuals falling under various categories. A public officer is defined as a person who falls into any of the following descriptions:

• (a) Every Judge.
• (b) Every member of an All India Service.
• (c) Every commissioned or gazetted officer in the military, naval or air forces of the Union while serving under the Government.
• (d) Every officer of a Court of Justice whose duties involve investigating or reporting on legal or factual matters, creating or maintaining documents, handling property, executing judicial processes, administering oaths, interpreting, maintaining order in the court or those authorised by a Court of Justice to perform such duties.
• (e) Anyone holding an office that empowers them to confine individuals.
• (f) Government officers responsible for preventing offenses, reporting offenses, bringing offenders to justice or safeguarding public health, safety or convenience.
• (g) Officers tasked with managing government property, conducting surveys, assessments or contracts on behalf of the Government, executing revenue processes, investigating matters affecting government financial interests, creating or maintaining documents related to government financial interests or preventing violations of laws protecting government financial interests.
• (h) Officers in government service, remunerated by fees or commissions for performing public duties.

Interpretation of Section 2(17)(h) and Suit Against the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner

In the case of Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Ramesh Chandra Jha, AIR 1990 SC 648, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 2(17)(h) of the CPC. The court held that the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner is considered a public officer. Consequently, a lawsuit filed against such an officer without serving the notice required under Section 80 of the CPC is not maintainable.

Definition of Government Pleader According to Section 2(7) r/w. Order 27, Rule 8-B of CPC

Section 2(7) of the CPC defines “Government Pleader” as any officer appointed by the State Government to perform the functions expressly imposed by the CPC on the Government Pleader. This definition also includes any pleader who acts under the directions of the Government Pleader. Essentially, a Government Pleader is a legal officer appointed by the state government to represent the government’s interests in legal matters and proceedings as specified by the CPC.

Seeking Exemption from Two Months Prior Notice under Section 80(2) CPC

When a plaintiff seeks exemption from the two-month prior notice requirement under Section 80(2) of the CPC, the court must follow specific procedures to ensure fairness and natural justice:

• The court should issue notice to the DGC (Civil), who represents the Union of India or the State, inviting objections and allowing a hearing on the plaintiff’s application under Section 80(2) of the CPC.
• Before granting permission to the plaintiff to file a lawsuit against the Union of India or the State without the two-month notice, the court must observe the principles of natural justice, including the principle of “audi alteram partem,” which means giving both sides a fair opportunity to be heard.
• The DGC (Civil) should not be deprived of the right to object and present their case against the plaintiff’s application for exemption from the notice requirement under Section 80(2) CPC. Failure to issue notice for a hearing is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The right to be heard in one’s defense is fundamental and essential for a fair adjudication.

This procedural aspect is highlighted in the case of Suresh Chandra Nanhorya vs. Rajendra Rajak, 2006 (65) ALR 323 (SC).

Introduction of a New Cause of Action through Amendment and Notice under Section 80 CPC

If an amendment to the plaint introduces a new cause of action, it is essential to serve a fresh notice under Section 80 of the CPC. This requirement is upheld in the case of Bishan Dayal vs. State of Orissa, (2001) 1 SCC 555.

Agent for Government to Receive Process (Order 27, Rule 4 CPC)

According to Order 27, Rule 4 of the CPC, the Government pleader in any court serves as the agent of the Government for the purpose of receiving processes issued by that court against the Government.

Second Notice under  CPC after Withdrawal of First Suit (Order 23, Rule 1 CPC)

When a plaintiff withdraws a suit that was initially filed against the Government after issuing notice under Section 80 of the CPC and subsequently seeks to file a fresh suit based on the same cause of action, a fresh notice under Section 80 CPC before instituting the second suit is not necessary. This principle is affirmed in the case of Amar Nath Dogra vs. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 424 (Five Judge Bench).

Waiver of Notice under Section 80 CPC

Notice under Section 80 of the CPC can be waived by the concerned authorities. Waiver can be inferred even from the non-appearance and absence of a written statement by the government authorities. This has been recognised in various legal cases, including Bishandayal vs. State of Orissa, (2001) 1 SCC 555 and Gaja vs. Dasa Koeri, AIR 1964 All 471.

Third Party Cannot Object about Notice under Section 80 CPC

When the authorities concerned have waived the notice requirement under Section 80 of the CPC, it is not open for any other party to the suit to raise objections regarding the absence of notice under CPC as a ground for challenging the maintainability of the suit. This principle is established in the case of Gaja vs. Dasa Koeri, AIR 1964 All 471.

Impleadment of State during Pendency of Suit and Notice under Section 80 CPC

If a plaintiff files a suit against an auction purchaser of land from a Gaon Sabha for possession and injunction and the State Government, which is a necessary party, is not impleaded in the suit and no notice under Section 80 CPC is issued to the State Government and no exemption from notice is obtained, the suit may not be maintainable. This is based on the case of Sri Ram vs. Smt. Mullo, 1979 ALR (5) 374 (All).

Death of Plaintiff after Issue of Notice under Section 80 CPC and Before Institution of Suit

In situations where the plaintiff’s father issued notice under Section 80 CPC, but before the expiration of the next two months and the filing of the suit, the plaintiff’s father passes away and the suit is subsequently filed by the son without issuing a fresh notice under Section 80 CPC, the Supreme Court has held that the notice under Section 80 CPC already issued is sufficient and a fresh notice is not necessary. This principle is affirmed in the case of Ghanshyam Dass vs. Dominion of India, AIR 1984 SC 1004.

Section 80 CPC Applies Only to Acts of Public Officers Done in Their Official Capacity

Section 80 of the CPC applies specifically to acts of public officers carried out in their official capacity. In a situation where the plaintiff sought interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 CPC in a suit for permanent injunction related to acts done by a public officer in his official capacity but failed to issue a notice under Section 80 CPC, the suit may be impacted by Section 80 CPC and interim injunction might not be granted. This interpretation is derived from the case of U.R. Agarwal vs. Brahm Singh, AIR 1976 All 243.

Notice under CPC to State Alone and Not to the Public Officer – Not Fatal

If a plaintiff files a suit against the state seeking injunction and claiming possession over disputed land and a two-month prior notice under Section 80 CPC is served only to the state and not to the public officer (Block Development Officer) against whom the injunction is sought due to interference, the suit against the public officer/BDO cannot be dismissed for want of notice under Section 80 CPC to the public officer. This is established in the case of Ghulam Rasool vs. State of J & K, AIR 1983 SC 1188.

Conclusion

Section 80 of CPC in India stands as a pivotal legal provision aimed at ensuring fairness and accountability in lawsuits against the government and public officers.

Section 80 CPC mandates the issuance of a notice prior to suing the government, providing a two-month period for officials to respond. This mechanism fosters amicable resolution and saves public resources.

The section offers exceptions for urgent cases, with court oversight. The importance of adhering to its procedural requirements cannot be overstated, including identifying the correct addressee, clarity in plaintiff details and the timely expiration of the notice period.

Moreover, courts must observe the principles of natural justice when considering exemptions.

Application under Section 80(2) CPC Format

Draft/Specimen of suit under section 80 of code of civil procedure against a public officer of govt of Uttar Pradesh

NOTICE OF SUIT UNDER SECTION  80, C.P. CODE AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICER OF A STATE GOVERNMENT

                                                                                                                                Registered with A/D

                                                                                                                                Dated:-

                                                                                                                                The _________20____

To

_______________________

(Name and Official Designation)

P.O.

Date

                               
            Notice under section 80 of the code of civil procedure

Dear Sir

Please take notice that my client ………… son of……….. residing at …………………………..intends to bring a suit against the (state here the office the intended defendant holds), a public officer of the government of (state the name of the province or simply of the government of India as the case may be ) in a competent court of law on the cause of action stated herein-under and for reliefs appearing below :

Cause of action for the intended suit …………………..

Reliefs sought for …………….……..

                                                                                                                                                Yours Faithfully

                                                                                                                                                      Advocate