1992 (2) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....strain the 2nd Defendant from constructing, establishing or functioning a rice or flour mill in the plaint schedule property without obtaining statutory licence. 2. 1st Defendant, who is the Executive Officer of the Panchayat submitted before the Court that licence has already, been issued to the 2nd Defendant even before the suit was filed. The Plaintiff then filed I.A. 878/86 praying for amendment of the plaint so as to include a prayer for declaration that the licence, if any, issued by the first Defendant-Panchayat was without compliance with the statutory requirement and therefore illegal and invalid and that the 2nd Defendant was not entitled to function the mill on the basis of the licence thus issued. The above I.A. was dismissed b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1988 and the same was received by the Executive Officer on 13th September 1988. A reply was received by the Plaintiff on 17th November 1988. After expiration of two months, the Plaintiff filed I.A. 2314/88 for amending the plaint so as to enable him to incorporate a prayer for declaration that the licence issued by the 1st Defendant panchayat is without complying with the statutory provisions and requirements and hence the licence issued is illegal and invalid and the 2nd Defendant is not entitled function the mill on the strength of the licence and consequently to prohibit the 2nd Defendant by a permanent injunction from functioning the mill in the plaint schedule property. 5. The above application was rejected by the Court below mainly ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 123 of the Kerala Panchayats Act and the provisions contained under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure regarding notice, are included in the statute for a specific purpose not, to drag the public, officers to the Court unnecessarily. She submitted that even when the suit was filed, licence was already issued. A suit, which was filed without issuing notice as contemplated by Section 123 of the Act cannot be allowed to be converted, into a suit which requires a notice under Section 123 by way of amendment. According to counsel, such a procedure would defeat the very purpose of Section 123. Learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bihari Chowdhary and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1043 to support h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n we examine the scheme of the section it becomes obvious that the section has been enacted as a measure of public policy with the object of ensuring that before a suit is instituted against the Government or a public officer, the Government or the officer concerned is afforded an opportunity to scrutinise the claim in respect of which the suit is proposed to be filed and if it be found to be a just claim, to take immediate action and thereby avoid unnecessary litigation and save public time and money by settling the claim without driving the person who has issued the notice to institute the suit involving considerable expenditure and delay. The Government unlike private parties, is expected to consider the matter covered by the notice in a....