http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SATYA NARAIN PRASAD

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/10/1969

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. MITTER, G.K. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1199            1970 SCR  (3) 198  1969 SCC  (3) 679

ACT: Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 (17 of 1878), s.  10-Notice under  section must be given by or under Authority of  State Government. Pleadings--Validity   of  notice  challenged   in   suit-Not necessary  to  state  every  legal  ground  in  support   of challenge.

HEADNOTE: The  respondent was granted the lease of a public  ferry  by the  State  of Uttar Pradesh for a period  of  three  years. Under  s.  10 of the Northern India Ferries  Act,  1878  the State Government Was empowered to cancel such a lease on the expiry of six months notice in writing to the lessee of  its intention  to, cancel the lease.  Before the expiry  of  the full term of his lease the respondent’s lease was ordered to be  terminated, the notice under s. 10 having been given  by the Executive Engineer.  In a suit for permanent  injunction restraining the State Government from terminating his  lease and   taking  possession  of  the  ferry,   the   respondent challenged  the validity of the notice under s. 10 given  by the  Executive Engineer.  The suit was decreed by the  trial court,  and the trial court’s decree was affirmed in  second appeal  by  the High Court.  The State appealed  by  special leave to this Court.  The requirements of a notice under  s. 10 of the Act fell for consideration. HELD : (i) In construing s. 10 of the Act it has to be borne in  mind that it deals with the cancellation of a  lease  of tolls of a public ferry.  In other words, once the notice is effective  valuable  rights of the lessee come  to  an  end. ’Ibis  is recognised by the Legislature by providing  a  six months’ notice.  This period is given so that he can wind up this  particular  business.  In this context the  notice  of intention to cancel the lease cannot be an empty  formality. The notice must be such that, the lessee can safely act upon it  and regulate his affairs; he must not speculate  at  his peril  as to what is the true position.  Therefore a  notice under  s. 10 of the Act must on its face show that  what  is being  conveyed is Government’s intention to cancel a  lease and  that  it  is being conveyed either  by  the  Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

itself or an officer duly authorised on its behalf. [200  E- 201 A] In  the present case the body of the notice did  not  fulfil the  above requirement of s. 10.  Merely because the  notice was signed by the Executive Engineer and mentioned s. 10  it could  not  be  said  that  the.   Executive  Engineer   was expressing  the intention of the Government.  An officer  of the  Government  has  no general authority  to  act  on  its behalf.   Even if he holds out on behalf of  the  Government that  he has the right to do a particular thing,  the  right must in fact exist. [200 G-H] (ii) When  the validity of the notice was challenged in  the plaint  it  was not necessary that every  legal,  ground  of challenge should have been stated therein.. [201 B-C]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1117 of 1966. 199 Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and decree  dated October  11,  1965  of the Allahabad High  Court  in  Second Appeal No. 81 of 1957. C.   B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for the appellant. L.   M. Singhvi and U. P. Singh, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri,  J.-This appeal by special leave is directed  against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 81 of 1957, whereby the High Court (.S. N. Katju, J.) allowed the appeal., set aside the decree of  the court  below  and decreed the suit in terms  of  the  decree passed by the Trial Court. A very short point arises in this appeal and this is whether the  notice  dated July 22, 1953, which  we  will  reproduce presently, was in compliance with the provisions of s. 10 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878-hereinafter referred to as the Act. In  order  to appreciate the points raised before us  it  is necessary  to  give  a  few  facts.   Satya  Narain  Prasad, respondent  before  us, was granted a lease  of  Qazi  Tolla Ferry for three years on October 18, 1951.  The agreed  rent was  Rs.  46,500/-.  Before the date of the  expiry  of  the lease, G. D. Mathur, Executive Engineer, Banaras  Provincial Division,  gave a notice to the respondent, dated  July  22, 1953, in the following terms               "Subject  Lease  of Qazitola Ferry  Notice  is               hereby     given  to you under Section  10  of               the Northern India   Ferries Act and  included               as clause 14 of your lease     agreement  that               on expiry of six months notice from      today,               the lease of the above mentioned ferry in your               favour as lessee will be terminated."  Section  10  of the Act, referred to  in  the               notice, reads as     follows               "The State Government may cancel the lease  of               the   tolls of -any public ferry on the expiry               of six months   notice   in  writing  to   the               lessee of its intention to cancel   such               lease. When any lease is cancelled under  this               section,  the  Magistrate of the  District  in               which such ferry     is  situate shall pay  to               the lessee such compensation as     such               Magistrate may, with the previous sanction  of               the   State Government, award."      The notice expired on January 21, 1954, and on February

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

17,  1954, the notice terminating the lease under s.; 10 was given.In  the  meantime, the respondent had given  a  notice under  s.80,  C.P.C., and on February 18, 1954, he  filed  a suit challenging the order of termination of the lease.  The plaintiff had prayed for 200 a   permanent   injunction  restraining   the   State   from determining  the  lease and taking over  possession  of  the Qazitolla Ferry. The  Trial Court decreed the suit.  The State  appealed  and the Civil Judge, Ghazipur, allowed the appeal and  dismissed the suit. The High Court held that the notice dated July 22, 1953, did not comply with the provisions of S. 10 of the Act.   Katju, J., observed               "There must be a notice in writing saying that               the lease shall be cancelled after the  expiry               of  six  months from the date of  the  notice.               Furthermore,  the notice must show that it  is               the  intention  of the State  Government  that               lease should be cancelled -after the expiry of               six months.  It is manifest that the notice on               the  face  of it should show  that  the  State               Government  intends  that the lease  shall  be               terminated after the expiry of six months from               the  date of the notice.  In the notice  given               by  Sri  C.  D. Mathur, there  is  nothing  to               indicate that the State Government had decided               that  the  lease  should-be  cancelled.    The               notice  on  the face of it shows that  it  was               given by the Executive Engineer.  It was  open               to  the appellant to interpret the  notice  to               mean  that the Executive Engineer  desired  to               terminate  the lease and it did not show  that               the  State Government also intended. that  the               lease should be terminated." In  construing S. 10 of the Act it has to be borne  in  mind that it deals with the cancellation of a lease of tolls of a public ferry.  In other words, once the (notice is effective valuable  rights  of  a  lessee come to  an  end.   This  is recognised  by  the Legislature by providing  a  six  months notice.   This period is given so that he can wind  up  this particular   business.   In  this  context  the  notice   of intention to cancel the lease cannot be an empty  formality. The notice must be such that the lessee can safely act  upon it and regulate his affairs.  It follows from this that  the notice  must  on  the  face  of  it  comply  with  all   the requirements  of  S.  10.  The first requisite  of  a  valid notice under s. 10 is that it must express the intention  of the  Government.  The body of the notice in this  case  does not  do so.  It is urged that the notice is signed by C.  D. Mathur,  Executive Engineer, and mentions S. 10 of the  Act, and these facts should have led the lessee to conclude  that the   Executive   Engineer   was   expressing   Government’s intention.  It is not disputed that Government can authorise an officer, either by a general order or a special order  to give a notice of Government’s intention.  But in that event, the  officer should say so in the notice.  An officer  of  a Government  has no general authority to act on  its  behalf. Even  if he holds out on behalf of the Government  that  lie has the right to do a particular thing, the right must 201 in fact exist.  In cannot be that the lessee must  speculate at  his peril as to what is the true position.  It seems  to us that in view of these considerations a notice under S. 10

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

of the Act must on its face show that what is being conveyed is  Government’s intention to cancel a lease and that it  is being  conveyed  either by Government itself or  an  officer duly authorised on its behalf. It is urged that this particular ground was not mentioned in the  plaint.  But the validity of the notice was  challenged and it is not necessary that every legal ground of challenge should have been stated in the plaint. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. G.C.                                                  Appeal dismissed. Sup.  S C I/70-14 202