PATNA HIGH COURT
S.Sarwar Ali, J.
Kamta Prasad Singh
Versus
Regional Manager, Food Corporation Of India
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 400 of 1971 ;
Decided On : MAY 13, 1974
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - SECTION 80 CPC - APPLICABILITY - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, employees of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), challenged a transfer order and sought an injunction to maintain status quo. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, holding that notice under Section 80 CPC was mandatory and the suit was not maintainable. The appellate court upheld this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that Section 80 CPC, requiring notice to the Government before instituting a suit against it or a public officer, did not apply to the FCI or its officers. The FCI was a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, capable of suing and being sued in its own name. The officers of the FCI were not in the service or pay of the Government, but of the FCI itself.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 80 CPC applied to the FCI and its officers. 2. Whether the suit was maintainable without notice under Section 80 CPC. 3. Whether the appellate court erred in refusing to grant an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 80 CPC applies to the Government and public officers, but the FCI is a body corporate and its officers are not public officers within the meaning of the Code. 2. The suit was maintainable without notice under Section 80 CPC. 3. The appellate court did not err in refusing to grant an injunction, as the balance of convenience did not lie in favor of the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal to the extent of holding the suit maintainable and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit.
S.Sarwar Ali, J.
1. The plaintiffs, who are appellants in this Court, filed a suit challenging the transfer order passed by the Food Corporation of India, in whose employment they claim to be. They also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from giving effect to the transfer order arid directing them to maintain status quo till the hearing of the injunction matter. The injunction application was taken up for hearing. In disposing of the application, the learned Munsif came to the conclusion that no case has been made out for grant of injunction. He also held that on account of non-service of notice, as contemplated under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit was not maintainable. He accordingly rejected the plant under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code.
2. The plaintiffs went up in appeal and labelled their appeal as miscellaneous appeal. The aPpeal has been dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that although prima facie case has been made out, the balance of convenience does not lie in the grant of injunction. He further came to the conclusion that notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was mandatory. He thus affirmed the view of the learned Munsif. After the decision aforesaid, the plaintiffs fust filed a civil revision application, which, on the objection of the Stamp Reporter, has been converted into a second appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the view of law taken by the courts below that a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was necessary so far as the Food Corporation of India or its officers are concerned, is not a good view in law. He referred to the provisions of Section 80 of the Code, as also some of the provisions of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (Au XXXVII of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that in view of certain provisions, on which he relied. Section 80 of the Code was applicable.
4. Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires service of notice on the Government before instituting a suit against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purported to be done by such public officer in hi; official capacity. We have, therefore, to see. whether the Food Corporation of India is covered by the expression "Government", we have also to see, whether the expression "public officer" as used in the Section would cover officers of the Corporation.
5. Sec.3 of the Act is as follows:-
-
"With effect from such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specifv in this behalf, the Central Government shall establish for the purpose of this Act a Corporation known as the Food Corporation of India. (2) The Corporation shall be a body corporate with the name aforesaid, having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of this Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract, and may, by that name, sue and be sued."
It would thus appear that the Corporation is a body corporate and can sue and can be sued in its own name. The lact that the capital of the Corporation may be provided by the Central Government or that the working of the Corporation can be supervised or directions may be issued by the Government does not, in my view, constitute it a "Government" within the meaning of Section 80 of the Code. Although the expression "Government" has not been denned in the Code, it cannot, in mv view, include a "Corporal on" constituted under an Act of the the Parliament. The expression "public officer" has been defined in Sub-section (17) ot Sec.2 of the Code. The only sub-clause which might have some relevancy is Sub-clause (h), which is as follows:-
-
"(h) Every officer in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.