ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to institute a suit without serving notice under Section 80(1) of the CPC. That has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order, against which, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein.

2. Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, would submit that in case of an urgent or immediate relief against the Government and governmental authorities, a suit may be' instituted with the leave of the Court without serving any notice as required under sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the CPC, as such, the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would support the impugned order.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

5. In order to decide the dispute, it would be appropriate to notice Section 80(1) & (2) of the CPC which reads as under:--

"80. Notice.--(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suit 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;

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

(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 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.

(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 (1); 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)."

6. Section 80(2) of the CPC is in the nature of an exception to Section 80(1). It has been introduced with a view to entertain suits where urgent or immediate relief is required to be obtained. Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the CPC is mandatory in nature and it cannot be bypassed. It is a condition precedent even in the suit for injunction.

7. In the matter of State of A.P. Vs. Pioneer Builders, A.P. (2006) 12 SCC 119 the Supreme Court while considering the provisions contained in Section 80(2) of the CPC has held that leave of the Court is condition precedent. It was observed as under:--

"14. From a bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 80, it is plain that subject to what is provided in sub-section (2) thereof, no suit can