LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     25 April 2010

Section 80 CPC unconstitutional and Ultravires

Section 80 of the Civil procedure Code is discriminatory in as much as the Constitution Under article 14 clearly speak s about equality before the Law, and Article 300 clearly says that the central Government and the state government are juristic person and can sue or be sued. Discriminatory emerged when the Centra Government or the State Government has to file suit against anybody it does not require Notice but for the citizen or person it require Notice to sue the Central or State government, as such it violate the equality provisions under article 14. It is also notice that when Notice under section 80 is send to the Government it is ignored without any action and rendered thr provisions futile provisions and required to be deleted from the CPC.


 6 Replies

Arvind Singh Chauhan (advocate)     25 April 2010

I do agree Sir.

Neha Tiwari (student)     25 April 2010

very correct....must be deleted....no matter its a case of tort, crime, civil  etc the role responsibility and accountability of state must b increased.... the govt must nt escape on the name of  so called soveregin  purpose...

niranjan (civil practice)     25 April 2010

The reason that it should be struck off is that the govt.itself has negativated it.Further to say that I have come across judgments that even after the suit is filed with permission and it is registered,there is a proviso below sub sec.2 that if the court is not satisfied after hearing both parties about the urgency,the court can reject the suit..This proviso frustrates the urgency clause.

Rakesh Shekhawat (Advocate)     25 April 2010

With due respect to all off u. I think this section inserted to enable government officials to solve the problem of concern person without instituting any suit. If government officials doesn't perform his duty, you can't blame the said provision While Sub section 2 is available there.

Koj Tado (Law Student)     27 April 2010

I support the opinion of Mr. Shekhawat, the intention of the provision is to provide a speedier remedy but if it is not acted upon by the executive then the law cannot be blamed. Furthermore the party is also getting the benefit of extension of limitation so it is not violative of Article 14. Moreover the Government and the private parties are different, so you cannot plead the advantage of equality provision. Clause 2 is discreationary, the Court must take a considered view in individual cases relating to urgency of the matter.  

Gagan Gupta (Advocate)     27 April 2010

Law should be formed keeping in view the Nature/work load//sense of reponsibility of/on the Officials responsible to execute. if for any reason section 80 CPC is redundant it must go.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register