A valid statutory notice under Section 52A of the GIDC Act is mandatory before filing a suit against the Corporation, and failure to comply necessitates the rejection of the plaint.

JUDGMENT:

1.Admit.

2.Heard learned Counsel Mr. H.D. Naik who appears along with Mr. Aditya D. Naik for the Applicant and Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar who appears along with Ms. Marie Rosette Pereira for the Respondent.

3.The Applicant-Goa Industrial Development Corporation, in short, GIDC preferred the present Revision thereby challenging the impugned order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court wherein the Application [Exhibit D-8] filed by the Applicant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

4.The Applicant is the Defendant whereas the Respondent is the Plaintiff in a suit instituted for grant of declaration and permanent injunction.

5.Learned Counsel Mr. H.D. Naik appearing for the Applicant submits that the plaint needs to be rejected for want of statutory notice under Section 52A of the Goa Industrial Development Act, 1965 [GIDC Act, for short]. He submits that the suit was filed in the year 2017 for declaration and injunction thereby challenging the order dated 20.04.2017, by which, the Respondent/Plaintiff were directed to hand over possession of the suit plot for the reasons disclosed therein. He submits that after the accrual of the cause of action i.e. from 20.04.2017, the Respondent/Plaintiff ought to have issued a notice under Section 52A of GIDC Act, 1965 disclosing all the particulars and the cause of action. In the absence of such notice, the plaint could not have been entertained and needs to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC as barred by law.

6.Mr. Naik would then submit that on 18.02.2015, a show cause notice was issued to the Respondent/Plaintiff and thereafter, the notice purported to be issued under Section 52A was served upon the Applicant/Defendant dated 20.10.2016. The Respondent challenged subsequent order passed therein by filing a Writ Petition before this Court. Since it was observed by this Court that before the order, no hearing was given to the Respondent/Plaintiff and therefore, the said order was set aside and the Applicant/ Defendant was directed to give a hearing to the Respondent/ Plaintiff and thereafter, to pass orders in accordance with law.

7.Mr. Naik would therefore submit that the earlier notice dated 20.10.2016 cannot be termed as notice after the actual accrual of the cause of action on 20.04.2017. He, therefore, submits that the earlier notice which the Trial Court has considered, cannot be accepted as compliance to the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the GIDC Act. He then submitted that admittedly, such procedure under Section 52A of the GIDC Act is mandatory and special provision is made therein to issue notice and to file the proceedings within a specified time. Therefore, even if the earlier notice dated 20.10.2016 is considered, the same was not issued within time as prescribed under the GIDC Act and that the suit is also not filed within the time frame.

8.Mr. Naik placed reliance on the following decisions:-

(a) V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao & Another, (2005) 4 SCC 613;

(b) M/s Boshan Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Communidade of Bordem & Others, 2015 (6) ALL MR 868;

(c) Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Kishorchand Sakaria , 2014 (6) ALL MR 624 and (d) Noor Mohd. Shami Shaikh & Others Vs. Maharashtra Housing & Development Board & Others, 2014 (1) Mh.L.J 92.

9.Per contra learned Counsel Mr. Usgaonkar appearing for the Respondent/Plaintiff would submit that the purposive test if applied, would lead to the only conclusion that the earlier notice dated 20.10.2016 served the purpose by intimating the Applicant/Defendant about the challenge raised by the Plaintiff to the show cause notice and to the order subsequently passed. He would submit that such notice issu