SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Ker) 14

Judges : SUKUMARAN
PADMANABHAN NAIR - Appellant
Versus
K.S.E.BOARD - Respondent
Case No : S.A. No. 50 of 1981
Decided On : 01/09/1987
Advocates Appeared :
S. Venkatarajan; For Appellant N. Viswanatha Iyer; For Respondent

The judgment established the legal principle that Electricity Board is not 'Government' and its officers are not 'public officers' within the meaning of S.80 CPC.

Headnote:

S.80 CPC - Distinction between 'State' and 'Government' - Legal nature and character of Electricity Boards - Interpretation of S.80 CPC and S.2(17) - Reference to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts - Conclusion that Electricity Board is not 'Government' and its officers are not 'public officers' within the meaning of S.80 CPC

Fact of the Case:

In 1979, Shri. V. Padmanabhan Nair sought court's help against Kerala State Electricity Board and an Engineer for excessive electricity charges. The suit was deemed bad for non-compliance with S.80 of CPC due to lack of notice to the Government as a pre-condition for litigation.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the legal nature and character of Electricity Boards, distinguishing between 'State' and 'Government', and concluded that the Electricity Board is not 'Government' and its officers are not 'public officers' within the meaning of S.80 CPC.

Issues: Non-compliance with S.80 of CPC, distinction between 'State' and 'Government', legal nature and character of Electricity Boards, and the definition of 'public officer' as per S.2(17).

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of S.80 CPC and S.2(17), reference to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and the distinction between 'State' and 'Government'.

Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, judgments and decrees of the courts below were set aside, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the suit afresh on merits. The appellant was granted his entire costs in all the courts.

Judgment :-

1. In the year 1979, a member of the learned profession of law, Shri. V. Padmanabhan Nair of Parur, sought the help of the court for the vindication of a right on behalf of the consumer-public. The action was against the Kerala State Electricity Board and an Engineer working under it. It was complained that electricity charges demanded were much in excess of his actual and legal liability.

2. Due to an unfavourable trend in the wind, the plaintiff's skiff got stranded on a rocky gorge: the courts below took the view that the suit was bad for non-compliance with S.80 of CPC, which mandates a notice to Government as a pre-condition for initiation of litigation. The courts below took the view that the Electricity Board is 'Government' as the term is referred to in S.80, and that the Assistant Engineer of the Board is a'public officer', as defined in S.2(17) of the CPC. The absence of notice according to those courts, was fatal to the maintainability of the suit.

3. The correctness of the view so taken by the courts below is challenged in the second appeal.

4. The material portion of S.80 reads as follows:

"Save as otherwise provided in sub-s. (2), 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 "

The term 'public officer' is defined in S.2(17); it is defined as a person falling under any of the descriptions enumerated as clauses.(a) to (h). For the purpose of this case, only clauses.(e) to (h) are relevant.

5. It is no doubt true that to the lay mind, the concepts of 'State' and 'Government' may not signify much of difference. Courts of law have, however, to be precise in the delineation of the contours of these concepts.

6. Electricity Boards constituted under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, bad figured in important judicial decisions by the highest court, which had to assess the true character and legal status. Rajasthan Electricity Board's case is a legal classic in itself. (Vide AIR 1967 SC 1857). The guidelines contained therein have been helpful in understanding the legal nature and character of other statutory bodies too. The issues settled by the decision, and others of later times which have sometimes amplified and sometimes explained the earlier ideas, is simply this: An Electricity Board is a State within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution. It would then follow as a corollary that in relation to its acts and activities, the Board has necessarily to conform to the provisions of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. The question whether the Electricity Board is Government, however, did not arise in that decision.

7. There is a vital and clear difference between 'Government' and 'State'. The jurisprudential position is explained by authoritative and helpful legal literature explaining and elucidating the concept of State and Government. Salmond and Paton, Dias and Allen and other jurists have commented upon the concepts, The theory of the State by J. K. Bluntschli contains much of thought on State and Government. It is, however, unnecessary to attempt an elaborate discussion on that topic as the connected ideas have been exhaustively discussed by the Supreme Court in Pashupati Nath v. Nem Chandra, AIR 1984 SC. 399. It was pointed out therein:

"A State Implies the existence of a community or group of people occupying a geographical area or territory in which they permanently reside possessing internal sovereignty and independence of foreign control and a political organisation or agency through which the collective will of the people is expressed and enforced. The last of the elements of a State referred to above is generally called as a Government.

From the legal point of view, Government may be described as the exercise of certain powers and the performance of certain duties by p













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top