Back
1971 Supreme(Ori) 64
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A. Misra, J.
STATE OF ORISSA - Appellant
Versus
SARAT CHANDRA PANIGRAHI - Respondent
Second Appeal 482 Of 1967
Decided On : JUNE 21, 1971
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC OFFICERS
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.80
ORISSA PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT : S.42
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT : S.42
Headnote
PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT - SECTION 80 C. P. C. - NOTICE - REQUIREMENTS - SUIT AGAINST GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC OFFICERS - MAINTAINABILITY - CAUSE OF ACTION - DECLARATORY SUIT - SECTION 42 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - DEMAND FOR PAYMENT - LEGAL CHARACTER OR RIGHT TO PROPERTY - DENIAL OR INTEREST IN DENYING - ESSENTIAL REQUISITES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a forest contractor, challenged the validity of a certificate proceeding initiated against him for recovery of an amount due under a forest contract. He claimed that he had withdrawn his offer before the contract was accepted and that the demand for payment was illegal. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that no dues were outstanding against him and for cancellation of the certificate proceeding.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 80 C. P. C. by not serving a valid notice on the State and the public officers concerned. The court also held that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file a declaratory suit merely because a demand for payment was made, as such a demand did not amount to denial of his legal character or right to property.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable in the absence of a valid notice under Section 80 C. P. C.? 2. Whether the plaintiff had a cause of action to file a declaratory suit merely because a demand for payment was made?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of Section 80 C. P. C. are mandatory and failure to serve a valid notice complying with the requirements of the Statute will entail dismissal of the suit. The court further held that the notice has to be reasonably construed, and if in substance, there is compliance with the requirements any unimportant error or defect in it cannot be used to defeat a just claim. 2. The court held that a mere demand for payment does not give a cause of action to file a declaratory suit. The essential requisites for a declaratory action under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act are that the plaintiff must at the time of the suit be entitled to any legal character or to any right to any property; that the defendant should have denied or interested in denying the character or title of the plaintiff and that the declaration asked for must be a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a legal character or to a right to property.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the trial court restored.
R.C.Ram
A. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) DEFENDANTS are the appellants against a reversing judgment.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a forest contractor, while defendant No. 1 is the Etate of Orissa and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the Certificate Officer and Divisional Forest officer of Bolangir. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that he being the highest bidder in the public auction of forest coupes in the year 1950-51 held on 15-10-50, matkhai coupe No. 12, lot No. 4 was knocked down in his favour for Rs. 2,500/- on which he deposited the security money of Rs. 250/- and signed a blank agreement form. Under the relevant rules, the competent authority to accept the bids exceeding Rs. 2,000/- was the Conservator of Forests. The agreement (Ex. B)after acceptance and signature by the Conservator of Forests was received by him long after the date of bid. In the meanwhile, he had intimated defendant No. 3 of his unwillingness to work the coupe and revoked his offer. In spite of it, he was called upon by defendant No. 3 to pay the first instalment by the notice (Ex. C)dated 14-12-50, but he did not pay as he had already withdrawn his offer. Defendant No. 3 made a report to the Conservator on 23-12-50 to terminate the alleged agreement, but the Conservator purported to determine it on 28-5-51 and the plaintiff was intimated that his security had been forfeited and was called upon to pav the bid amount of Rs. 2,500/ -. Plaintiff's appeal against this order to government was rejected. Thereafter, defendant No. 3 filed a certificate before defendant No. 2 for recovery of Rs. 2,563. 14. 0 on which the latter started certificate Case No. 10/38 of 1952/53 dated 29-7-53. Plaintiffs objection under section 9 of the B and O Public Demands Recovery Act denying his liability was rejected though defendant No. 2 reduced the claim by Rs. 500/- alleged to have been obtained by resale of the coupe. Plaintiff had issued a notice under Sec. 80, c. P. C. to defendant No. 1 on 24. 7. 52 which was received by the Collector of bolangir on 28-7-52. As no relief was granted, he filed the present suit praying for a decree that the sum of Rs. 2,048. 12. 0 or any other amount is not due against him and for a declaration that the certificate in question he cancelled on the ground that no dues were outstanding against him and the order of defendant No. 2 in the certificate proceeding was not in conformity with law or Forest Contract rules.
( 3 ) THE defendants resisted the suit pleading inter alia that when the highest bid of the plaintiff was accepted and he signed Ex. B on 15-10-50 the contract was
complete, and in any case, the contract became concluded on 6-11-50 when he was informed of the acceptance of the bid by the Conservator of Forests. Defendant No. 3 even at the request of plaintiff was not competent to cancel a completed contract. Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to pay the bid amount less the amount obtained by resale of the coupe in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the Forest Contract Rules. In addition, it was also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of a valid notice under section 80 C. P. C. subsequent to the institution of the certificate case and the previous notice before the cause of action arose was not sufficient compliance with law.
( 4 ) THE trial court dismissed the suit on the following findings: (1) The Conservator of Forests executed Ex. B sometime in May, 1951; (2) before completion of the contract, it was open to the plaintiff to revoke his offer, and as such, the subsequent execution of Ex. B by the Conservator of Forests cannot validate a contract which was previously revoked by the plaintiff before its acceptance; (3)there was no valid and enforceable contract and consequently the plaintiff is not guilty of breach of contract or liable to pay any damage on that score; (4) the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. (Ex. K) is not a valid and legal one entitling the plaintiff to bring the present suit for canc
