Mandatory statutory notice and substantial compliance with recovery procedure determined the validity of police charge enforcement.

Executive recovery measures under the Bombay District Police Act were not invalid merely because of defects in form, since the statutory scheme allowed substantial conformity and cured defects of expression; the levy itself was not undone by substituting the persons from whom recovery was sought. However, recovery of the additional police charge had to proceed through the Municipality first, and direct action by the Collector was premature because that statutory step was bypassed. A mandatory notice requirement under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure strictly applied even where injunction was sought, so the suit was not maintainable before expiry of the notice period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Government notification and recovery measures under the Bombay District Police Act were invalid for want of compliance with the statutory scheme and for alleged defects in form and procedure. (ii) Whether the suit was barred for non-compliance with the notice requirement under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the Government notification and recovery measures under the Bombay District Police Act were invalid for want of compliance with the statutory scheme and for alleged defects in form and procedure.

Analysis: The taxing and recovery powers under Sections 25 and 25A of the Bombay District Police Act were executive in character, and the Act did not prescribe rigid forms. The notification had to be read reasonably in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Any defect in expression or form was cured by Section 79 of the Act, so long as the order was made in substantial conformity with the statutory provisions. The substitution of the persons from whom recovery was to be made did not by itself invalidate the levy. However, in relation to the cost of additional police, the Act required recovery to proceed through the Municipality until default was made. That statutory step had been bypassed, and the Collector's direct recovery was therefore premature.

Conclusion: The notification was not invalid on the grounds of form or general statutory non-compliance, but the direct recovery of the additional police charge by the Collector was premature and not in accordance with the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred for non-compliance with the notice requirement under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 80 was held to be express and mandatory, admitting of no implied exceptions for suits seeking injunctions. A suit remains within the section even if injunctive relief is claimed. The act complained of was the completed official order authorising recovery, not merely the threatened future enforcement. Since the statutory notice period had not expired when the suit was instituted, the action was not maintainable in limine.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the official recovery measures failed because the suit was instituted prematurely and without compliance with the mandatory notice requirement, leaving no basis for relief against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory notice requirement expressed in mandatory terms must be strictly complied with, and a suit cannot avoid that bar merely by coupling the claim with a prayer for injunction; administrative orders made in substantial conformity with the governing statute are not invalidated by mere defects of form.

---