@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Hon''ble Mrs. Justice B.S. Indrakala
1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed on IA.I filed u/s 80 read with Section 151 of CPC by the petitioner seeking dispensation of issuance of statutory notice to the respondent - Union of India as contemplated in the said provision. The Trial Court by observing that the plaintiff has not sought any interim relief against the defendant, observing that there is no urgency in the matter has deemed it fit to dismiss the said application and ordered for return of plaint.
2. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of IA No. 1, the petitioner preferred the above writ contending that, she will lose the academic year by waiting for 60 days for compliance of statutory notice.
3. On perusal of the copy of affidavit filed in support of the application filed at Annexure-''B'', it is seen that the petitioner has specifically contended in paragraphs 3 and 4 as hereunder:
3. I submit that I had applied for a passport with the defendants and I was having a valid passport from the year 17.03.1995. It is submitted that in my latest passport bearing No. F 2565241 issued for the period from 14.03.2005 to 13.03.2015 and I recently noticed that the date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 25.10.1989 instead of 25.08.1989 and this fact was brought to the notice of the 2nd defendant and sought for correction for which 2nd defendant immediately cancelled the passport on 25.05.2011 and directed me to obtain court permission.
4. I submit that I have finished my Engineering and I intend to go abroad for higher studies and my passport has been cancelled and there is urgency in the matter in view of the same it is just and necessary that the issuance of notice u/s 80 of CPC is to be dispensed with.
4. The said contention of the petitioner reveals the urgency of matter in seeking such dispensation of issuance of notice.
5. The object of issue of notice u/s 80 of the CPC is to provide an opportunity to the Government to consider the legal position to settle the claim without compelling parties to go for litigation and also to afford an opportunity to the officer of the Government to scrutinise and settle the matter, if possible with a minimum action so that unnecessary litigation is avoided. However, Section 80(2) of CPC also provides for the situation where notices can be dispensed with as discussed supra i.e., where the matter needs to be decided urgently.
6. In the instant case, on reading of the copy of the plaint, it is seen that respondent No. 2 has specifically stated that when she brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent the discrepancy in mentioning the date of birth, wrongly as 25.10.1989 instead of 25.8.1989 in the passport, the 2nd respondent instead of attending to rectification of such discrepancy, deemed it fit to cancel the passport itself, directing the plaintiff to obtain the required permission from the Court, which only goes to show that even if a notice as contemplated u/s 80 of CPC is issued, the same will not yield any result but, only in vain. Thus, the object of issuance of notice to the respondents will not be achieved.
7. For the sake of convenience, it is necessary to excerpt Section 80(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as hereunder:
80(2) - A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1), but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit.
Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1).
8. Thus, the said proviso to Sub Clause (2) of Section 80 does not specify that an IA seeking interim relief requires to be filed, to make out an urgency so as to dispense with the issuance of notice. On the other hand, suffice it if the plaintiff prima facie shows that there is some urgency in the disposal of the suit itself. In this context, even after registration of the suit nothing prevents the Court to give reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit to the respondent/defendant - Union of India.
9. In the circumstances, the observation made by the Trial Court that no urgency is made out by the plaintiff as no application is filed seeking any interim relief is totally uncalled for and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The above writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.01.2012 passed in OS No. 821/2012 is hereby quashed and the Trial Court is directed to take the said suit on board and proceed on merits by dispensing with service of issuance of notice to the respondent - Union of India as contemplated u/s 80(2) of CPC.
Considering the nature of relief sought in the suit, the Trial Court is also directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously within six months from date of receipt of copy of this order.
