http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI CHANDER KANT

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/10/1976

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1977 AIR  148            1977 SCR  (1) 993  1977 SCC  (1) 257

ACT:         Code of Civil Procedure, s. 80--Whether applicable to  suits         filed    undersection 9(1) of the (M.P.) Public Trusts  Act,         1951.

HEADNOTE:         The  respondent  filed this suit against the  order  of  the         Registrar of  Public Trust, Amraoti, declaring the  Ganjanan         Maharaj Sansthan of Mangrul---Dastagir to be a public trust.         The  Additional District Judge’s order dismissing the  suit,         was  Upheld in appeal by the Single judge of the High  Court         on  account  of the respondent’s failure to serve  a  notice         under-section 80 C.P.C. Allowing a Letters Patent Appeal,  a         Full Bench of the High Court held that s. 80 C.P.C. was  not         applicable  to suits filed  under-section 8 of  the   (M.P.)         Public  Trusts  Act, 1951.         Allowing the appeal, the Court         HELD:  Section 8 of the Act indicates that the suit  contem-         plated there  is against the public officer in his  official         capacity  within  the meaning of Section 80 of the  Code  of         Civil  Procedure.  The words "Act purporting to be  done  in         official  capacity"  apply  to non-feasance as  well  as  to         misfeasance.   No distinction can be made between acts  done         illegally and in bad faith and acts  done bonafide in  offi-         cia1 capacity. [994 C, 995 D]             Sawai  Singhai Nirmal Chand v. Union of India  [1966]  1         S.C.R. 986 referred to.         Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secretary of State for India in  Coun-         cil and  others (54 LA. 338), Prasaddas v. Bennerjee  I.L.R.         [1930] (57) Cal. 1127, applied.

JUDGMENT:              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1798  of         1968.             (From  the  Judgment and Decree dated 16.6.1966  of  the         Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 13/62)         V.S. Desai & M.N. Shroff for the appellants.         A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

           RAY,  C.J.---This  appeal  by certificate  is  from  the         judgment  dated  16 June, 1966 of the High Court  at  Bombay         (Nagpur Bench).             The respondent filed this suit against the State  claim-         ing  that  the order dated 1 March, 1955 in   Revenue   case         declaring   Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan of Mangrul-Dastagir  to         be a public trust be set aside.  The plaint was filed  under         section  8 (1) of the Public Trust Act (M.P.  Public  Trusts         Act 1951) against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Regis-         trar of Public Trust, Amraoti.             It  is  admitted  by the parties that  no  notice  under         section  80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was  given.   The         defendants  took  the plea that the suit was  liable  to  be         dismissed  by  reason of no notice under section 80  of  the         Code of Civil Procedure having been given.         994             The  Additional  District Judge by his  order  dated  26         March,  1957 held a notice under section 80 of the  Code  of         Civil Procedure was necessary and the suit was not maintain-         able and ordered  the dismissal of the Suit.             The  respondent filed an appeal.  The   learned   Single         Judge agreed with the view of the Additional District Judge.             A  Letters  Patent  Appeal was filed.   The  matter  was         placed before a Full Bench.  The Full Bench held  that   the         provisions  of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had         no.  application  to  a suit filed under section  8  of  the         Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred         to as the Act).             This  Court  in Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand v.  Union  of         India(1) held that notice under section 80 is necessary  for         setting aside orders of attachment and sale of property.             The  provisions contained in section 8 of the Act  indi-         cate that the suit contemplated there is against the  Public         Officer  in  his  official capacity within  the  meaning  of         section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.             The provisions of section 80 of the Code of Civil Proce-         dure  are  express, explicit and mandatory.   See  Bhagchand         Dagadusa  v.  Secretary of State for India  in  Council  and         others(2).             The Registrar in the present case held it to be a public         trust. The declaration sought for in this suit is that  this         is not a public trust.  The High Court was wrong in  holding         -that the suit under section 8 of the Act cannot be regarded         as a suit against the Government.             The Full Bench held that neither the Government nor  the         Registrar was competent to give any relief to any person who         felt aggrieved by the order of the Registrar.             The following provisions of the Act are important to  be         noticed.  The  Collector shall be the  Registrar  of  Public         Trusts in respect of every public trust the principal office         or  the principal place of business- of which is situate  in         his  district.  Within three months  from the date on  which         section  4 comes into force in any area or from the date  on         which  a  public trust is created, the  working  trustee  of         every  public  trust  shall apply to  the  Registrar  having         jurisdiction  for the registration of the public trust.   On         receipt  of  an  application  the Registrar  shall  make  an         inquiry as contemplated in section 5 of the Act.  The Regis-         trar then shall record his finding with reasons. The  Regis-         trar  shall cause entries to be made in the  register.   Any         person aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar may  within         six   months from the date of the publication of the  notice         institute a suit in  a civil court to have such finding  set         aside  or  modified.  In  every such suit, the  civil  court         shall give notice to the State Government through the Regis-

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

       trar,  and the State Government, if it so desires, shall  be         made a party to the suit.  All monies belonging to a public         (1) [1966] 1 S.C.R. 986.                 (2) 54.I.A. 338.         995         trust shall be kept in a Scheduled Bank.  No sale, mortgage,         exchange or gift of any immoveable property and no lease for         a  period exceeding seven years in the case of  agricultural         land  or for a period exceeding three years in the  case  of         non-agricultural  land or a building belonging to  a  public         trust,  shall be valid without the previous sanction of  the         Registrar.  The Budget of every public trust where the gross         annual income of which exceeds one thousand rupees shall  be         submitted to the Registrar.  The Registrar shall have powers         to  enter on and inspect or cause to be entered on  and  in-         spected   any  property belonging to a public trust,  or  to         call for any return, statement, account or report as contem-         plated in section 22 of the Act. If the Registrar finds  any         defects  in  the  administration of the   public  trust  the         Registrar  may  require the working trust as to  submit   an         explanation.   The  Registrar has power as  contemplated  in         section  26  of the Act to direct the trustee  to  apply  to         court for directions in certain cases.  If the trustee fails         to  do so the Registrar shall himself make  an  application.         The  State Government may make rules for the  purposes  men-         tioned in the Act.             These   provisions  indicate  that the  Registrar  is  a         Public   Officer.  The word? "act purporting to be  done  in         official  capacity"  have been construed to  apply  to  non-         feasance as well as to misfeasance.   The word "act" extends         to  illegal omissions.  See  Prasaddas v.  Bennerjee(1).  No         distinction  can be made between acts done illegally and  in         bad faith and acts done bona fide in official capacity.  See         Bhagchand  Dagadusa’s case (supra).  Section 80 of the  Code         of  Civil Procedure therefore is attracted when any suit  is         filed  against a Public Officer in respect of any  act  pur-         porting  to be done by such Public Officer in  his  official         capacity.             The  language of section 80 of the Code of Civil  Proce-         dure  is that a notice is to be given against not  only  the         Government but also against the Public Officer in respect of         any act purpoting to be done in  his official capacity.  The         Registrar is a Public Officer.  The order is an act purport-         ing to be done in his official capacity.             In the present case, the suit is to set aside the  order         made  by  a Public Officer in respect of an act done in  the         discharge  of his official duties.  Therefore, notice  under         section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was required.             For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the High Court         is set aside.  Parties will pay and bear their own costs.         M.R.                                            Appeal   al-         lowed.         (1) I.L.R. (1930) 57 Cal. 1127.         996