Judgement

SEN, J. :- These appeals by special leave are directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated December 20, 1984 reversing the judgment and order of a learned single Judge dated March 27, 1979 and allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein Thiru Chaturvedi Badrinath, a senior member of the Indian Administrative Service, and directing the issuance of a writ of mandamus ordaining the State Government of Tamil Nadu from granting the requisite permission of the Government under R. 17 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 for the institution of a suit for damages for defamation by him against respondent No. 2 Thiru V. Karthikeyan, the then Chief Secretary to the State Government of Tamil Nadu by a defamatory statement that he, allegedly, made to a correspondent of the Indian Express against him.

2. The facts. At the relevant time, respondent No. 1 Thiru Badrinath was the Commissioner of Archives & Historical Research, Tamil Nadu. On September 7, 1973 he delivered a speech at a function held by the History Association of the Presidency College, Madras criticising the time capsule buried in the precincts of the Red Fort at Delhi and said that it was full of distortions of historical facts describing it as neither history nor fiction. This led to a furore both in Parliament as well as in the national press. The Government feeling greatly embarrassed by the controversy created about the authenticity of the time capsule, started disciplinary inquiry against respondent No. 1 under Rr. 6 and 7 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules on the view that being a civil servant it was not desirable that he should have participated in a public discussion on the time capsule. However, the State, Government by a G.O. dated August 25, 1977 dropped the disciplinary proceedings. Just a day before i.e. on August 24, 1977 a signed news item appeared in all the editions of the Indian Express about the controversy regarding the time capsule stating that a Government spokesman charged respondent No. 1 as trying to sabotage the civil services from within . Taking umbrage at the offending utterance, respondent No. 1 addressed a letter dated August 25, 1977 expressing his anguish that such a statement was made by a Government spokesman, and desired to know as to who that Government spokesman was; and whether he indeed uttered the words and if so, whether that reflected the views of the Government. On the same day, respondent No. 2 in his capacity as the Chief Secretary replied that he had no information to communicate to him on the subject. On December 5, 1977 respondent No. 1 addressed another letter to respondent No. 2 in the form of a representation complaining of the defamatory attack on him demanding that the Government should issue a contradiction through the press. The Government did not accede to the demand. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 1 apparently addressed a letter to a certain Shastri Ramachandran, the press correspondent of the Indian Express, asking him to disclose the name of the Government spokesman. The correspondent by his letter dated December 14, 1977 informed that the Government spokesman was respondent No. 2 who during a telephonic conversation with him had made the offending utterance. There were certain other utterances attributed to respondent No. 2 with which we are not concerned. Upon this, respondent No. 1 by his letter dated December 19, 1977 sought permission to meet the Chief Minister and personally place before him his grievances set out in his aforesaid representation. The grievance of respondent No. 1 is that the letter was never replied to.

3. Eventually, on December 28, 1977 respondent No. 1 applied for sanction of the Government under R. 17 of the Rules seeking permission to institute a suit against respondent No. 2 for damages for defamation. This was sought on the ground. that in an interview with Thiru Shastri Ramachandran, the correspondent of the In