P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) GOVERNMENT Press Employees Union, represented by its General Secretary, aggrieved by the order of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 28-7-2003 made in I. A. No. 685/2003 in O. S. No. 6691/2002 had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the Returning Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad twin cities, Anjaiah Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE Revision petitioner aforesaid filed an application I. A. No. 685/2003 in o. S. No. 6691/2002 praying for leave to file the suit without giving notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as "code", by exempting the same in the interest of justice. The learned Junior civil Judge had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to leave at the stage of filing written statement and had dismissed the application holding further that the suit is liable to be rejected. ( 3 ) SRI Chakravarthi, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner had submitted that prior to the filing of the suit a letter dated 19-11-2002 was given to the 1st respondent which can be deemed to be a notice under Section 80 of the Code. The Counsel also would maintain that whether the non-issuance of notice is fatal to the maintainability of the suit or not may have to be decided depending upon several facts and circumstances inclusive of the fact whether there had been waiver of the said benefit by the Government or the concerned public Officer. The learned Counsel had further maintained that in view of the same, the plaint cannot be rejected for want of notice under Section 80 of the code and in this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would maintain that as per the allegations made in the plaint, it is clear that the respondent had failed to discharge its statutory duties and in view of the failure to perform the statutory duties when an action is brought before the Court, no notice under Section 80 of the Code need be given. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions too in this regard. The learned Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions too in this regard. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, Sri Ali, Counsel representing Sri Shaik Anwar Pasha, the learned Counsel for the respondent would maintain that the maintainability of the suit in the absence of a notice under Section 80 of the Code had been taken by way of an objection at the earliest point of time and the same being mandatory the said defect cannot be cured by mere filing of an application at a later stage for granting leave to file the suit by exempting notice under section 80 of the Code. The learned Counsel also in detail had explained the scope and object of notice under Section 80 of the Code and had concluded that in the light of the reasons recorded in detail by the X Junior Civil Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard both the Counsel. ( 5 ) THE petitioner-Union, a registered Union affiliated to Indian National Trade union Congress (INTUC) filed the suit for declaration of the action of the 1st defendant, Returning Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, Twin cities, in issuing memo dated 6-11-2002 for conducting verification and elections to the petitioner-Union as illegal, arbitrary and against law and for perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant-Returning Officer from conducting elections to the Government Central Press Union, Chanchalguda and assembly Press, Hyderabad, and for other appropriate reliefs. It is stated that the cause of action arose at Musheerabad, Hyderabad where the 1st defendant s office is situated, on 6-11-2002 when the first notice was given calling for information, on 9-11-2002 when reply of plaintiff was given and on 23-11-2002 when the second and final notice was given by the 1st defendant. It is no doubt true that in para-3 of the plaint it was pleaded as hereunder :"on receipt of the above circular the plaintiff Secretary of the Union wrote a letter on 19-11-02 stating though he was declared as majority union and made a request to that extent, the 1st defendant did not recognize it and not called for the union for any discussions. Even in the Memo dated 6. 11. 02 the plaintiff s name was shown at no. 3 whereas it must be at no. 1 being major union. Even in the Memo dated 6. 11. 02 the plaintiff s name was shown at no. 3 whereas it must be at no. 1 being major union. Before receiving the above notice, 3 days earlier the AITUC officiated A. P. Government Press Employees Union. I got the above notice and made display on the notice board. Therefore it is presumed that the said notice was issued under influence of that union and it is provoked the plaintiff s union employees unrest in the press. Moreover since it is a busy period for calendars it cannot be feasible to conduct any elections and the arbitrary action of issuing the notice by the 1st defendant suffered the organization. Therefore, the plaintiff union requested the 1st defendant to arrange the record of secret ballot of election of Government Central Press for briefing the same to the member employees for avoiding unrest. Though the above letter was given on 19. 11. 02. Without mentioning the same the 1st defendant sent 2nd and final notice on 25. 11. 02 bearing No. C1/4236/02 stating that the unions is the address entry are requested to produce the records as mentioned in the 1st notice dt. 6. 11. 02 to his office on or before 7. 12. 02. It is also mentioned that it is 2nd and final notice and no further notice shall be given. It is also stated that failure to produce the above records will entail elimination of the union from verification process and in this matter no correspondence shall be entertained. It is illegal. " ( 6 ) AS can be seen from the plaint, the same was filed on 2-12-2002. It is needless to say that the suit was instituted which is within 30 days of the issuance of this letter. Even otherwise, as concluded in para-3 of the plaint, it is clear that the Secretary of the plaintiff-Union wrote a letter dated 19-11-2002 stating though this Union was declared as majority Union and made a request to that extent, the 1st defendant did not recognize it and had not called the Union for any discussions. In view of the same, the contention that this letter can be treated as a notice under Section 80 of the Code definitely cannot be accepted. In view of the same, the contention that this letter can be treated as a notice under Section 80 of the Code definitely cannot be accepted. Section 80 of the Code dealing with Notice reads as hereunder : (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and kashmir) or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of - (a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, except where it relates to railway, a Secretary to that Government; (b) in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that railway; (bb) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and kashmir, the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorized by that Government in this behalf; (c) in the case of suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that government or the Collector of the district; and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. (2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit: provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1 ). (3) No suit instituted against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), if in such notice - (a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice has been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1), and (b) the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated. ( 7 ) THE contention raised that inasmuch as these are the statutory duties to be performed by the respondent, no notice need be given under Section 80 of the code, also is without substance. The words ". . . . . against a public officer in respect of act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity. . . . . " in Section 80 (1) of the Code assume lot of importance. At any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that even as per the averments made in the plaint, the acts complained fall outside the duties of the respondent. . . . . " in Section 80 (1) of the Code assume lot of importance. At any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that even as per the averments made in the plaint, the acts complained fall outside the duties of the respondent. Sub-section (2) introduced to Section 80 of the Code by Act 104 of 1976 deals with obtaining leave of the Court while praying for an urgent or immediate relief against the Government or any public officer. Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Code no doubt says that a suit shall not be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1) if in such notice, the name, description and residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public authority to identify the person serving the notice and such notice has been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority in sub-section (1) and the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff has been substantially indicated. Strong reliance was placed on C. ARJUN RAO Vs. Dr. T. RAMAMOHANA RAO AND ANOTHER wherein it was held that a suit, when an urgent or immediate relief is sought for against a public officer in respect of any action purporting to be done by the public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, fortifies the view that notice under Section 80 of the Code is only procedural for the protection of the public officer and if such public officer waives the said right of protection, he cannot be granted protection of bar of suit of law as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code and whether there is such waiver or not can be decided only after recording of evidence and not at interlocutory stage. This decision is of no help to the revision petitioner for the reason that the suit was originally instituted without issuing any notice under Section 80 of the Code and without filing an application under Section 80 (2) of the Code praying for leave to institute the suit in view of the urgency involved in the matter. This decision is of no help to the revision petitioner for the reason that the suit was originally instituted without issuing any notice under Section 80 of the Code and without filing an application under Section 80 (2) of the Code praying for leave to institute the suit in view of the urgency involved in the matter. It is also pertinent to note that objection was taken at the earliest point of time relating to the maintainability of the suit for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code inasmuch as issuance of such notice is a sine qua non for the institution of the suit and the same being mandatory. In AMAR NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA it was held that in respect of suits to which Section 80 of the Code is applicable, compliance with it is mandatory and a suit which does not satisfy its terms is liable to be dismissed. In B. V. NARASIMHARAO Vs. STATE it was held that mere fact that a notice under Section 80 is inartistically and carelessly drafted, that by itself should not defeat the plaintiff s claim against the Government when all the necessary information is contained in the notice and there is no vital difference between the notice and the plaint. In P. SIVARAMAKRISHNAIAH Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER it was held that in suits against Government or against a public officer in discharge of his official duties, notice under Section 80 of the Code is mandatory and in respect of any act purporting to be done in his official capacity notice under Section 80 of the Code is necessary and such notice is mandatory and should be strictly complied with. In TARU RANI Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD, DINAPORE it was held :"section 80 of the Code consists of two parts, one with regard to the institution of the suit against the Government and the other against the public officers. The inhibition contained in the section as to the institution of the suit against the Government is unqualified and in that view of the matter, the plaint has to be rejected as against the Union of India (defendant No. 5 ). But the question for consideration in the present appeals is whether on that account, the plaintiff should be non-suited altogether. But the question for consideration in the present appeals is whether on that account, the plaintiff should be non-suited altogether. In a suit filed against a public officer, notice is mandatory only when it is in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity. If the act is not one purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, no such notice is necessary. S. 273 of the CANTONMENTS ACT, 1924 provides for a notice before instituting such a suit against the Cantonment Board or its officers and the language of the Section is in pari materia with the provisions contained in Section 80 of the Code relating to the suit against public officers, which makes the notice mandatory only if the suit is intended to be filed in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity. There is no doubt that the plaintiff has alleged illegal threatened action against her by the officers of the Board in taking steps for demolition of the construction raised by her. As it appears from the suit that entire relief claimed therein is against the defendants 1 and 2, who are the cantonment Board and the Executive Officer, the bar against institution of the suit against them is not unqualified either by application to provisions contained in Section 80 of the Code or those contained in Section 273 of the cantonments ACT, 1924. Hence, the Court below cannot reject the whole plaint on the hypothesis that the provisions of Section 80 (2nd part) of the Code and those of section 273 of the Cantonment act has constituted absolute bar. " ( 8 ) IN HIMACHAL STEEL REROLLERS and FABRICATORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held : "amended Section 80 now consists of two parts. Sub-clause (1) of Section 80 is imperative in nature and requires that every suit filed against the Government must be filed after serving a notice under Section 80 C. P. C. in the manner prescribed. Sub-clause (2) of Section 80 is an exception to clause (1) and in certain limited class of cases where some urgent or immediate relief against the government or a Public Officer is needed, the service of notice can be dispensed with by the leave of the Court. Sub-clause (2) of Section 80 is an exception to clause (1) and in certain limited class of cases where some urgent or immediate relief against the government or a Public Officer is needed, the service of notice can be dispensed with by the leave of the Court. Sub-clause (2) of Section 80 is extracted below:"a suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or any Public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1): but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or Public Officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit : provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1 ). "a bare perusal of the above provision will go to show that even in the expected class of cases the suit has to be filed only with the leave of the Court. Such leave must precede the institution of the suit. It is not possible to read into the language of above provision that a plaintiff can be permitted to obtain such leave even subsequent to the institution of the suit. The bar of notice under section 80 (1) can be removed only when requisite leave of the Court has been obtained before or at the most while filing the plaint for institution of the suit. Appellant s learned Counsel submitted that the use of the word shall in sub-clause (1) and the word may in sub-clause (2) of Section 80 indicates that this leave can be obtained subsequently. We find it difficult to agree to this. Appellant s learned Counsel submitted that the use of the word shall in sub-clause (1) and the word may in sub-clause (2) of Section 80 indicates that this leave can be obtained subsequently. We find it difficult to agree to this. A plaintiff intending to institute a suit against the Government has two options before him, either he may file a suit after serving two months notice under Section 80 CPC, or he may file the suit without serving the notice but in that event he must satisfy the Court that an urgent and immediate relief is required and also obtain previous leave of the Court. In the event of the first course being adopted the suit cannot be filed before the expiry of the two months of giving of the notice and this explains the reason for using the word shall in sub-clause (1) of Section 80 C. P. C. by the Parliament. However, in the second case he has the choice to file the suit without giving the requisite notice but only after obtaining leave of the Court and it is for this purpose that the word may has been used in Cl. (2) of Section 80 C. P. C. " ( 9 ) IN A. SARANGADHARAN Vs. VIJAYAN in a suit for compensation for medical negligence, a Doctor in a Government hospital also was made a party along with others and relief also was claimed against him and since such Doctor was discharging his duties as Public Officer, it was held that a separate notice to him under Section 80 of the Code is necessary. In SIVANANDA ROY Vs. JANAKI ballav PATTNAIK AND OTHERS it was held that notice under Section 80 of the code is necessary only when the suit is in respect of any act done or purported to be done by public officer in his official capacity. In Dr. VIJAY PAHWA Vs. BRATATI MUKHERJEE where an Income Tax Officer in the course of search and seizure illegally set fire on the place of search, the aggrieved assessee is not required to give notice under Section 80 of the Code for filing a suit against such Officer for recovery of damages due to such tortuous act since it was no part of his official duty to set on fire. ( 10 ) IT is no doubt true that in a suit instituted as against a Public Officer, a notice under Section 80 of the Code need be given in respect of any act purporting to be done by such Public Officer in his official capacity and not otherwise. But, in the present case, the very averments made in the plaint are to the effect that these are all statutory duties to be performed by the Public officer who is impleaded as a party and hence I have no hesitation in holding that this suit as framed without issuing notice under Section 80 of the Code, or at least without filing an application praying for leave on the ground of urgency, is definitely not maintainable in view of the fact that such issuance of notice is mandatory under the said provision and hence I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or legal infirmity warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. No costs. It is needless to say that if the petitioner feels that the cause survives, the petitioner is at liberty to comply with the provisions of Section 80 of the Code and proceed in accordance with law if it is so advised.