The only issue raised in these appeals is whether
Section 80 C.P.C. notice was required for instituting
the suit. The High Court has stated, in principle,
that for instituting a suit notice under Section 80
C.P.C. is required. But unfortunately the High Court
omitted to take note of the fact that the
respondent/State was permitted to be impleaded as
party and there was no objection taken by the State
at that time.
2.In that factual background, we are of the view that the stand taken by the High Court is not tenable, though, in principle, we have no quarrel with the general proposition that for instituting a suit notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is required.
3.There is no appearance on behalf of the appellants. We do not think that any fruitful purpose will be served by retaining this case before this Court. We do not also intend to remit it to the High Court, since it will be another round of litigation.
4.However, in the interest of justice, we grant the NARENDRA PRASAD the appellant to file an application before the High an application is filed on behalf of the appellant, the same may not be dismissed on the ground of delay and the High Court may consider the matter on merits.
5.With the above observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of.
6.Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
7.There shall be no orders as to costs. [KURIAN JOSEPH] [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 01, 2017.