JUDGMENT:- Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. Heard Mr. Dharmadhlkan with Mr. Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Jichkar, A.G. for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. G.C. Singh and Mr. Jalswal, learned counsel for interventions. The applications filed by them for intervention arc allowed. 3. This petition is directed against an order made by the trial Court refusing to grant leave to file suit by dispensing the statutory mandatory notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, since the suit is against the public officers. The learned trial court rejected the said application having been impressed by the fact that the decision on the tender process was to be taken on 11-06-200S and the suit was filed on 9-6-2008 in respect of cause of action which arose on 6-6-2008. The trial Court also observed on merits in order to support his order. The learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that Section so (2) of Civil Procedure Code is by way of exception to normal rule that a statutory notice under Section 80 has to be given before instituting a suit and the petitioner made out a case which satisfies the requirements of the said exception. He then argued that the trial Judge was in error in adverting to the merits of the matter and he could not have done so but should have restricted himself to the limited aspect whether to grant leave or not. 4. Per contra, the learned A.G.P. argued that the process in the matter of tender in question has advanced up to the final stage and no interference is required from this Court at this stage. He also submitted that the order dated 09-06-2008 is self explanatory and he placed reliance on the same in support of his submission and prayed for dismissal of writ petition, particularly in the light of the public interest of the Tribals of Gadchiroli d1strict. 5. Mr. G.C. Singh and Mr. Jaiswal Advocates assisted this Court and argued on the similar lines that the tender process has advanced up to the final stage and it will not be proper to interfere at this stage. The learned counsel for the intervenors also argued that as a matter of fact the suit itself is rendered infructuous looking to the prayers made therein and, Therefore, no interference is called for. 6. The learned counsel for the intervenors also argued that as a matter of fact the suit itself is rendered infructuous looking to the prayers made therein and, Therefore, no interference is called for. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties. Section 80(2) of Civil Procedure Code reads as under: "80 (I) (2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against 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 (I); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherw1se, 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 subsection (I)". Perusal of the above provision shows that subsection (2) of Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code is an exception to the normal rule, namely notice u/s.80 is mandatory before institution of any suit in a court of law. It. therefore, follows that the plainl1ff has to satisfy the cou11 that an application for leave is required to be filed for obtaining urgent or immediate relief. In the instant case, it appears that the last date for submission of tender was 06-06-2008 and the same was to be opened at 4.00 p.m. It appears that the suit was filed on 09-06-2008 along with the application (Ex.2) with the prayers made in the suit, namely for opening the tender submitted by the petitioner. The cause or reason that the tender filed by the petitioner was not opened would not be very much relevant for the purpose of deciding the application for leave to file suit. But there is evidence in the form of documents to show that the tender submitted by the petitioner was received in a sealed condition. 7. Looking to the above dates, it cannot be said that the petitioner d1d not sat1sfy the test. But there is evidence in the form of documents to show that the tender submitted by the petitioner was received in a sealed condition. 7. Looking to the above dates, it cannot be said that the petitioner d1d not sat1sfy the test. namely filing a suit for obtaining urgent or immediate relief. The Court ought to have considered these facts but instead the learned trial Court has based his order for reasons which are not germane for deciding the application for leave under Section 80(2). In view of the above discussion, the impugned order will have to be quashed and set aside. The application (Ex.2), i.e. M.J.C. No. 14 of 2008 is allowed. The suit be registered and all Misc. applications for injunction etc. be heard and decided by the trial Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of Writ of this Court, in view of the public interest that is involved in the transportation tender. With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be given to the part1es to act upon, on payment of necessary charges. Petition allowed.