A suit against the government or public officer for an act done in their official capacity requires a two-month written notice under Section 80 CPC. Failure to serve such notice renders the suit barred by law.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against judgment and decree dated 19. 4. 1996 passed by the IXth Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil suit No. 7-A/96.

( 2 ) THE Court below has granted a decree in favour of the respondent against the appellants jointly and severally to the extent of Rs. 22,000/ -. It has further decreed that the appellant shall pay Rs. 500/- per day to the respondent from the date of,filing of the suit. A mandatory injunction was granted to the effect that appellant shall grant permit to the respondent in accordance with law. Further, interest at a rate of 12% p. a. was granted by the Court below on the decree. All the appellants/defendants have filed this appeal.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed a suit for recovery of damages and mandatory injunction valued at Rs. 25,000/- against the appellant. His case was that he was an unemployed and educated person and therefore he applied for grant of loan for purchase of a jeep in order to run a taxi. The loan was got from the State Bank of india and, therefore, he obtained an assurance from the Regional Transport Authority, jabalpur, the appellant No. 3. The assurance having been granted, the appellant obtained loan from the State Bank of India. Thereafter the appellant purchased the jeep and got it registered as taxi in the office of State Transport Authority, gwalior. It was registered as rij-3325. After obtaining the registration certificate on 12. 5. 1987, the respondent/plaintiff applied for grant of temporary permit to run the aforesaid vehicle as a taxi. According to the respondent the fitness certificate was also granted by the appellant No. 3 the appellant had also got the vehicle insured and obtained licence to run the taxi: Despite fullfiling all the formalities for obtaining the temporary permit, no permit was granted to the respondent by the appellant No. 3. Thereafter it was claimed that notices were served to the appellant nos. 1 to 3 for requesting them to grant the permit, but no order was passed despite the fact that the respondent fulfilled all the conditions for grant of temporary permit. The respondent claimed that the vehicle layed idle since 12. 5. 1987 for want of requisite permit.

( 4 ) THE appellant suffered monetary loss to the extent of Rs. 500/-per day. The application of the respondent was unlawful and illegal and a permit was not granted to the respondent by the appellant with mala fide intention to cause him damage. He claimed damages amounting to Rs. 22,000/-for not granting the permit and then loss at a rate of Rs. 500/- per day from the date of filing the suit till the grant of permanent permit was claimed. Interest at a rate of 12% per annum was also claimed.

( 5 ) IT is clear from the allegation made in the claim that the respondent had not mentioned in the plaint specifically regarding the service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It cannot be disputed that the respondent was required to serve a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to filing the suit. Section 80 of the code of Civil Procedure requires that a suit against the Government or Public Officer, in respect of any act purporting to be done by such Public Officer in his official capacity have to be served with a notice of two months in writing which has to be delivered at his office. The notice must state the cause of action, the name and description, place of respondent/ plaintiff and the relief which is claimed and it is also directed that the plaint must contain a statement that such a notice have been delivered. There is only one exception where the provision of Section 80 can be relaxed i. e. to say when claim is of urgent nature and leave has to be granted and after the Court grants leave to the plaintiff for obtaining an interim relief prior to service of notice.

( 6 ) IN this case it is clear from the allegation made in the plaint that there is no specific paragraph in the pl