Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed challenging the order dated 05-10-2023 passed on a review application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, seeking review of order dated 18-04-2023 by which the Trial Court had, on an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code, granted to the appellant ad-interim protection against being dispossessed from Bungalow No. AB-5, Pandara Road, New Delhi, without due process of law. Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J., stayed the impugned order and directed the appellant to re-present the plaint before the Trial Court within 03 days of the pronouncement of the present judgment and also directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter by first deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, which stands restored before it and thereafter to proceed with the suit, in accordance with the law.
The appellant was allotted Bungalow No. AB-5, Pandara Road, New Delhi as official accommodation in his capacity as a Member of the Rajya Sabha and has been living there since 09-11-2022. For completeness, it may be mentioned that the House Committee of the Rajya Sabha, that deals with the official accommodation provided to its members, has also ratified the allotment of the subject bungalow on 24-11-2022. There is no dispute that the appellant continues to be a Member of the Rajya Sabha, though, for certain reasons, however, he is presently under suspension from the House.
The genesis of the dispute is letter dated 03-03-2023, received by the appellant from the Director, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, effectively cancelling the allotment of the subject bungalow. The aforesaid cancellation led to the appellant filing a suit before the Trial Court seeking reliefs essentially against dispossession or interference in his use and physical possession of the subject bungalow, pursuant to letter dated 03-03-2023 which he claimed was as illegal, non-est and void ab-initio. He was directed to the respondent authorities to show cause, but no action was taken. An application was filed under Order XLVII Rule 3 read with Order XLI Rule 5 CPC seeking review and setting-aside of order dated 18-04-2023, wherein the impugned order was passed.
The Court noted that the impugned order must be tested simply and only on the meaning to be ascribed to the words “Government” and “public officer” appearing in section 80 CPC. An analysis of the provision shows that section 80 CPC is in two parts : section 80(1) and section 80(2). Upon a dissection of the parts, it is seen, that section 80(1) bars the institution of a suit against the “Government” or a “public officer” (in respect of an act purporting to have been done by the public officer in his official capacity); and requires that before a suit is instituted against a Government or a public officer, a 02-month prior notice in-writing must be delivered to such Government or public officer. The notice must state the cause of action alongwith the name, description and place of the residence of the plaintiff alongwith the relief claimed. Furthermore, the plaint filed must contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.
The Court further noted that Section 80(2) deals with a situation where a plaintiff seeks “urgent or immediate relief” against a “Government” or a “public officer” (in respect of an act purporting to have been done by such public officer in his official capacity). In case of such urgency, the provision says that a suit may be instituted without serving the 02-months notice required under section 80(1), provided the leave of the court is taken for the purpose. The provision further states that the court “shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise” except after giving to the Government or public officer, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed-for. It goes on to say that if the court is satisfied after hearing the parties that no urgent or immediate relief is needed, it shall return the plaint to the plaintiff, to be (re-)presented after complying with the requirements of section 80(1).
On the submission by the respondent that since the appellant had himself moved an application under section 80 CPC, he is estopped from subsequently contending that that provision has no application as that would amount to approbating and reprobating, the Court observed that section 80 CPC cannot depend on whether a plaintiff has moved an application under that provision in a suit. The applicability of section 80 CPC is a matter of law, which must be decided on the basis of the parties to the suit and the relief claimed in the plaint. Since there is no estoppel against the law, this objection taken by the respondent is meritless. The word “Government” appearing in section 80 CPC would not include the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. Section 80 CPC has no application to the suit filed by the appellant, in which the sole defendant is the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, against which relief has been sought for in the suit.
The Court held that there was no requirement for the plaintiff to file the application under Section 80 CPC, or to comply with that provision, and therefore the application under Section 80 CPC is disposed of as infructuous. The Court directed the appellant to re-present the plaint before the Trial Court within 03 days of the pronouncement of the present judgment and also directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter by first deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, which stands restored before it and thereafter to proceed with the suit, in accordance with the law.
[Raghav Chadha v Rajya Sabha Secretariat, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6516, decided on 17-10-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Warisha Farasat, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Mr. Amit Bhandari, Mr. Vivek Jain, Mr. Prashant Manchanda, Mr. Aman, Mr. Vivek Jain, Ms. Hrishika Jain and Mr. Honey Kumbhat, Advocates for appellants
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG with Mr. Sandeep Mahapatra, Standing Counsel with Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu Mahapatra, Mr. Sugam Kumar Jha, Ms. Kritika Sharma, Mr. Harsh Raj, Mr. Megha Saxena, Ms. Osheen Verma, Ms. Akansha, Mr. Raghav Tandon, Ms. Anu Priya, Mr. Tribhuvan, Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Mr. Prashant Rawat and Mr. N. Chamwibo Zeliang, Advocates with Ms. Saraswati Saraf, EO.
