https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155737 A Supreme Court analysis on section 2(17)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure treated the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner as a public officer because he was appointed by the Central Government, held office as Chief Executive Officer of the Board, and remained subject to Government-controlled service conditions. His remuneration from the Fund and temporary placement with the Board did not change the character of his appointment or the public duties performed. On that basis, a suit against him attracted the notice requirement under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. en-us Wed, 31 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155737 A Supreme Court analysis on section 2(17)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure treated the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner as a public officer because he was appointed by the Central Government, held office as Chief Executive Officer of the Board, and remained subject to Government-controlled service conditions. His remuneration from the Fund and temporary placement with the Board did not change the character of his appointment or the public duties performed. On that basis, a suit against him attracted the notice requirement under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 31 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155737