1984 Supreme(MP) 209

(Supreme Court)
A. P. Sen and Balakrishna Eradi, JJ.
Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar.
C. A. No. 1048 of 1979; Decided on 26-3-1984.

Headnote:(1) Civil P. C., 1905 -- S. 80 -- nature of provision under -- is mandatory -- no suit can be instituted before expiration of notice period.

        (2) Interpretation of statutes -- language used in statute clear and unambiguous -- Court is bound to give effect to it -- hardship -- no ground for not faithfully implementing mandato of legislature.

        We are concerned in this case with Section 80 CPC as it stood prior to its amendment, by Act 104 of 1916 (even under the amended provision, the position remains unaltered insofar as a suit of this nature is concerned).

        Held : The effect ,of the section is clearly to impose a bar against the institution of a suit against the Government or a public officer in respect of any act purported to be done by him in his official capacity until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been deLi"Vered to or left at the office of the Secretary to Government or Collector of the concerned district and in the case of a public officer deLi"Vered to him or left at his office, stating the particulars enumerated in the last part of sub-section (1) of the section. When we examine the scheme of the section it becomes obvious that the section has been enacted as a measure of public policy with the object of ensuring that before a suit is instituted against the Government or a public officer, the Government or the officer concerned is afforded an opportunity to scrutinise the claim in respect of which the suit is proposed to be filed and if it be found to be a just claim, to take immediate action and thereby avoid unnecessary litigation and save public time and money by settling the claim without driving the person, who has issued the notice, to institute the suit involving considerable expenditure and delay. The Government, unlike private parties, is expected to consider the matter covered by the notice in a most objective manner, after obtaining such legal advice as they may think fit, and take a decision in public interest within the period of two months allowed by the section as to whether the claim is just and reasonable and the contemplated suit should, therefore, be avoided by speedy negotiations and settlement or whether the claim should be resisted by fighting out the suit if and when it is instituted. There is clearly a public purpose underlying the mandatory provision contained in the section insisting on the issuance of a notice setting out the particulars of the proposed suit and giving two months time to Government or a public officer before a suit can be instituted against them. The object of the section is the advancement of justice and the securing of public good by avoidance of unnecessary litigation.

        When the language used in the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is the plain duty of the Court to give effect to it and consideration of hardship will not be a legitimate ground for not faithfully implementing the mandate of the Legislature.

        It must now be regarded as settled law that a suit against the Government or a public officer, to which the requirement of a prior notice under Section 80 CPC is attracted, cannot be validly instituted until the expiration of period of two months next after the notice in writing has been deLi"Vered to the authorities concerned in the manner prescribed for in the section and if filed before the expiry of the said period, the suit bas to be dismissed as not maintainable. A. I. R. 1927 P. C. 176, A.I.R. 1947 P. C. 197 and AIR 1966 S. C. 1068 relied on. AIR 1963 Ker. 114 overruled. Appeal dismissed.