The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for leave of the Court under Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as a condition precedent for filing a suit against the Government or a public officer without serving notice.

Headnote:
Section 80 (2) - Civil Appeal - Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure - The judgment discusses the application of Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires leave of the Court to file a suit against the Government or a public officer without serving notice. The court emphasizes that the leave of the Court is a condition precedent and must precede the institution of a suit without serving notice. The judgment also highlights the legislative intent behind Section 80 (2) and the requirement for the Court to give the Government or public officer a reasonable opportunity to show cause before granting relief in the suit.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a registered company engaged in the manufacture of sugar, filed a suit against the Union of India and others, alleging that a proposed sugar mill by another company was in contravention of the rules relating to maintaining a minimum distance of 15 Kms. The trial court refused the appellant's application for leave under Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the matter.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court did not act without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction in vacating the interim order and directing the trial court to reconsider the matter. The trial court was directed to dispose of the plaintiff's application for grant of leave under Section 80 (2) of the Code within ten days.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the interpretation and application of Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether the High Court had the authority to remit the matter to the trial court for reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi: The leave of the Court under Section 80 (2) of the Code is a condition precedent and must precede the institution of a suit without serving notice. The Court cannot grant relief, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving the Government or a public officer a reasonable opportunity to show cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the plaintiff's application for grant of leave under Section 80 (2) of the Code within ten days.

JUDGMENT:

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

These two civil appeals have been taken up one after the other since both arise out of the same proceedings. While Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1983 of 2007 was directed against the interim order passed in the proceedings, the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 3855 of 2007 was filed against the final order. The interim order from which the first appeal was filed has since merged with the final order and has therefore been rendered infructuous. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1983 of 2007 is therefore dismissed as infructuous. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 3855 of 2007 has been filed by M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. against the order passed by the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Bench, in Civil Revision Petition No. 16 of 2007, allowing the revision and granting final relief in favour of the revisioner petitioner in the High Court.

In order to appreciate the order passed by the High Court, it is necessary to set out some of the facts leading to the filing of the said revision petition. The appellant before us is a registered company engaged in the manufacture of sugar and has various industrial undertakings at different sites in Uttar Pradesh. On 31.08.1998, a press note was issued by the Industries Ministry requiring compulsory licensing and it was also provided that new sugar factories, when established, would have to maintain a minimum distance of 15 Kms. from an existing sugar mill. Alleging that M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Limited (formerly known as the Pratappur Sugar & Industries Limited), the respondent No. 5 in this proceeding, was setting up a sugar mill at Itai Maida, which was within 15 Kms. of the proposed unit of the appellant-company at Kalu Bankat, the appellant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Balrampur, being No. 2 of 2006, against the Union of India and its authorities and M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Limited inter alia for a decree declaring that on filing of the Performance Bank Guarantee, the Kalu Bankat unit of the appellant-company had become a new sugar factory, as such, no proposed factory could be permitted within 15 Kms. of the proposed unit of the appellant-company at Kalu Bankat. Since the suit was filed against the Union of India, an application was also made under Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) for grant of leave to proceed against the Government and its authorities without service of notice under Section 80 (1) of the said Code. It was prayed that compliance as envisaged under Section 80 (2) of the Code, be dispensed with on account of the urgency involved. The said application was taken up for consideration by the learned Civil Judge on 18.01.2007. Holding that on a perusal of the plaint, there was no urgency in the matter, which warranted immediate relief, the leave prayed for by the appellant was not granted and the appellant was directed to ensure compliance of Section 80 (1) of the Code and thereafter to place the suit. The plaint was accordingly returned to the appellant (plaintiff) as per law. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Civil Judge, the appellants herein filed Civil Revision No. 16 of 2007 in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. In the revision, apart from praying for the order dated 18.01.2007 of the learned Civil Judge to be set aside, the appellants also prayed for a direction from the learned Civil Judge to register the case (emphasis added) and to hear the application filed by the appellants on merits and till the said application was decided, the respondents be required not to take any steps which could permit the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to set up their industrial undertaking at Itai Maida and also to restrain the others from continuing their developmental activities from their site at the said location.

Initially, while

Click Here to Read the rest of this document