A suit under Section 6 of the Government Demands Act is maintainable even if the notice prescribed by Section 80 Civil Procedure Code is not given by the plaintiff to the Government, if the suit is a continuation of the proceedings initiated by the Taluqdar and is in the nature of an appeal against the memorandum issued by the Taluqdar or the order made by him.

( 1 ) THE question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether a suit under Section 6 of the Government Demands Act (No. IV of 1308 F.) is maintainable though the notice prescribed by Section 80 Civil Procedure Code is not given by the plaintiff to the Government. The question arises under the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE appellant was the plaintiff in this suit which was dismissed by the lower Court as not maintainable for the reason that the notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code was not given to the State of Andhra Pradesh who is the defendant in the case. The allegations in the plaint are that one Ahmad Abdul Hakim was awarded an Indian Scholarship for studying medicine in Bombay for a period of 31/2 years and that he entered into an agreement with the then Government of Hyderabad on 22-9-1925. The plaintiff stood surety for him and executed a surety bond dated 23-9-1955 in favour of then Government of Hyderabad. The scholarship holder completed his course of study in Bombay and returned to Hyderabad; but the State Government would not entertain him in any suitable job, and, therefore, the scholarship-holder had to remove himself to the United Kingdom for further studies. On that, the Government of Hyderabad declared the scholarship-holder as a defaulter" and called upon the plaintiff to make good The sum of Rs. 5,250. 00 alleged to be due to the Government from the scholarship-holder. The Collector, by his order dated 22-10-1950, directed the plaintiff to pay to the Government a sum of Rs. 5,250. 00 within two months from the date thereof and that in default of compliance with his order for payment as aforesaid, coercive process would be employed for the recovery of that amount. Therefore, the present suit was filed as provided by Section 6 of the Government Demands Act (No. IV of 1308 F ). Several grounds are urged in the plaint claiming that the order of the Collector demanding the plaintiff for payment (sic) of the money due to the Government cannot be sustained. But the suit was dismissed on a preliminary ground that notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code was not given.

( 3 ) THEREFORE, the question that arises for determination is whether the suit has to fail for the reason that the plaintiff has not given notice as required by Section 80 Civil Procedure Code. Section 80 Civil Procedure Code 13 as follows:-"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 -- (a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, except where it relates to a Railway, a Secretary to that Government; (b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to a Railway, the General Manager of that railway; (c) in the case of a suit against a 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. "the language of this section is very general and mandatory, in that, it states that no suit shall be, instituted against the Government until the expiration of two months next after the notice in writing prescribed therein had been served on the Government. This appears to apply to any suit that might be filed against the Government. On behalf of the learned Government Pleader, Mr. Sarma relied upon the decision of the Privy Council in Bhagchand v. Secretary of State, AIR 1927 PC 176 wherein Their Lordships of the Privy Council pointed out that: "the Act, albeit a procedure Code, must be read in accordance with the natural meaning of its words. Section So

Click Here to Read the rest of this document