State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Satya
Narain Prasad [1969] INSC 321 (30 October 1969)
30/10/1969 SIKRI, S.M.
SIKRI, S.M.
MITTER, G.K.
REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
CITATION: 1970 AIR 1199 1970 SCR (3) 198 1969
SCC (3) 679
ACT:
Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 (17 of
1878), s. 10-Notice under section must be given by or under Authority of State
Government.
Pleadings--Validity of notice challenged in
suit-Not necessary to state every legal ground in support of challenge.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent was granted the lease of a
public ferry by the State of Uttar Pradesh for a period of three years.
Under s. 10 of the Northern India Ferries
Act, 1878 the State Government Was empowered to cancel such a lease on the
expiry of six months notice in writing to the lessee of its intention to,
cancel the lease. Before the expiry of the full term of his lease the
respondent's lease was ordered to be terminated, the notice under s. 10 having
been given by the Executive Engineer. In a suit for permanent injunction
restraining the State Government from terminating his lease and taking
possession of the ferry, the respondent challenged the validity of the notice
under s. 10 given by the Executive Engineer. The suit was decreed by the trial
court, and the trial court's decree was affirmed in second appeal by the High
Court. The State appealed by special leave to this Court. The requirements of a
notice under s. 10 of the Act fell for consideration.
HELD : (i) In construing s. 10 of the Act it
has to be borne in mind that it deals with the cancellation of a lease of tolls
of a public ferry. In other words, once the notice is effective valuable rights
of the lessee come to an end.
'Ibis is recognised by the Legislature by
providing a six months' notice. This period is given so that he can wind up
this particular business. In this context the notice of intention to cancel the
lease cannot be an empty formality.
The notice must be such that, the lessee can
safely act upon it and regulate his affairs; he must not speculate at his peril
as to what is the true position. Therefore a notice under s. 10 of the Act must
on its face show that what is being conveyed is Government's intention to
cancel a lease and that it is being conveyed either by the Government itself or
an officer duly authorised on its behalf. [200 E- 201 A] In the present case
the body of the notice did not fulfil the above requirement of s. 10. Merely
because the notice was signed by the Executive Engineer and mentioned s. 10 it
could not be said that the. Executive Engineer was expressing the intention of
the Government. An officer of the Government has no general authority to act on
its behalf. Even if he holds out on behalf of the Government that he has the
right to do a particular thing, the right must in fact exist. [200 G-H] (ii)
When the validity of the notice was challenged in the plaint it was not
necessary that every legal, ground of challenge should have been stated
therein.. [201 B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No.1117 of 1966.
199 Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and decree dated October 11, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal
No. 81 of 1957.
C. B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for the
appellant.
L. M. Singhvi and U. P. Singh, for the
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Sikri, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 81 of 1957, whereby
the High Court (.S. N.
Katju, J.) allowed the appeal., set aside the
decree of the court below and decreed the suit in terms of the decree passed by
the Trial Court.
A very short point arises in this appeal and
this is whether the notice dated July 22, 1953, which we will reproduce
presently, was in compliance with the provisions of s. 10 of the Northern India
Ferries Act, 1878-hereinafter referred to as the Act.
In order to appreciate the points raised
before us it is necessary to give a few facts. Satya Narain Prasad, respondent
before us, was granted a lease of Qazi Tolla Ferry for three years on October
18, 1951. The agreed rent was Rs. 46,500/-. Before the date of the expiry of
the lease, G. D. Mathur, Executive Engineer, Banaras Provincial Division, gave
a notice to the respondent, dated July 22, 1953, in the following terms "Subject
Lease of Qazitola Ferry Notice is hereby given to you under Section 10 of the
Northern India Ferries Act and included as clause 14 of your lease agreement
that on expiry of six months notice from today, the lease of the above
mentioned ferry in your favour as lessee will be terminated." Section 10
of the Act, referred to in the notice, reads as follows "The State
Government may cancel the lease of the tolls of -any public ferry on the expiry
of six months notice in writing to the lessee of its intention to cancel such
lease. When any lease is cancelled under this section, the Magistrate of the
District in which such ferry is situate shall pay to the lessee such
compensation as such Magistrate may, with the previous sanction of the State
Government, award." The notice expired on January 21, 1954, and on
February 17, 1954, the notice terminating the lease under s.; 10 was given.In
the meantime, the respondent had given a notice under s.80, C.P.C., and on
February 18, 1954, he filed a suit challenging the order of termination of the
lease. The plaintiff had prayed for 200 a permanent injunction restraining the
State from determining the lease and taking over possession of the Qazitolla
Ferry.
The Trial Court decreed the suit. The State
appealed and the Civil Judge, Ghazipur, allowed the appeal and dismissed the
suit.
The High Court held that the notice dated
July 22, 1953, did not comply with the provisions of S. 10 of the Act. Katju,
J., observed "There must be a notice in writing saying that the lease
shall be cancelled after the expiry of six months from the date of the notice.
Furthermore, the notice must show that it is
the intention of the State Government that lease should be cancelled -after the
expiry of six months. It is manifest that the notice on the face of it should
show that the State Government intends that the lease shall be terminated after
the expiry of six months from the date of the notice. In the notice given by
Sri C. D. Mathur, there is nothing to indicate that the State Government had decided
that the lease should-be cancelled. The notice on the face of it shows that it
was given by the Executive Engineer. It was open to the appellant to interpret
the notice to mean that the Executive Engineer desired to terminate the lease
and it did not show that the State Government also intended. that the lease
should be terminated." In construing S. 10 of the Act it has to be borne
in mind that it deals with the cancellation of a lease of tolls of a public
ferry. In other words, once the (notice is effective valuable rights of a
lessee come to an end. This is recognised by the Legislature by providing a six
months notice. This period is given so that he can wind up this particular
business. In this context the notice of intention to cancel the lease cannot be
an empty formality.
The notice must be such that the lessee can
safely act upon it and regulate his affairs. It follows from this that the
notice must on the face of it comply with all the requirements of S. 10. The
first requisite of a valid notice under s. 10 is that it must express the
intention of the Government. The body of the notice in this case does not do
so. It is urged that the notice is signed by C. D.
Mathur, Executive Engineer, and mentions S.
10 of the Act, and these facts should have led the lessee to conclude that the
Executive Engineer was expressing Government's intention. It is not disputed
that Government can authorise an officer, either by a general order or a
special order to give a notice of Government's intention. But in that event,
the officer should say so in the notice. An officer of a Government has no
general authority to act on its behalf.
Even if he holds out on behalf of the
Government that lie has the right to do a particular thing, the right must 201
in fact exist. In cannot be that the lessee must speculate at his peril as to
what is the true position. It seems to us that in view of these considerations
a notice under S. 10 of the Act must on its face show that what is being
conveyed is Government's intention to cancel a lease and that it is being
conveyed either by Government itself or an officer duly authorised on its
behalf.
It is urged that this particular ground was
not mentioned in the plaint. But the validity of the notice was challenged and
it is not necessary that every legal ground of challenge should have been
stated in the plaint.
In the result the appeal fails and is
dismissed with costs.
G.C. Appeal dismissed.
Back
