Civil Appeal No 1798 of 1968
From the Judgment and Decree dated 1661966 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No 1362 VS Desai  MN Shroff for the appellants
AG Ratnaparkhi for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY CJ
This appeal by certificate is from the judgment dated 16 June 1966 of the High Court at Bombay Nagpur Bench
The respondent filed this suit against the State claim ing that the order dated 1 March 1955 in Revenue case declaring Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan of Mangrul Dastagir to be a public trust be set aside
The plaint was filed under section 8 1 of the Public Trust Act MP Public Trusts Act 1951 against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Regis trar of Public Trust Amraoti
It is admitted by the parties that no notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was given
The defendants took the plea that the suit was liable to be dismissed by reason of no notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been given 994 The Additional District Judge by his order dated 26 March 1957 held a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was necessary and the suit was not maintain able and ordered the dismissal of the Suit
The respondent filed an appeal
The learned Single Judge agreed with the view of the Additional District Judge
A Letters Patent Appeal was filed
The matter was placed before a Full Bench
The Full Bench held that the provisions of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had No application to a suit filed under section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act
This Court in Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union of India1 held that notice under section 80 is necessary for setting aside orders of attachment and sale of property
The provisions contained in section 8 of the Act indi cate that the suit contemplated there is against the Public Officer in his official capacity within the meaning of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The provisions of section 80 of the Code of Civil Proce dure are express explicit and mandatory
See Bhagchand Dagadusa vs Secretary of State for India in Council and others2
The Registrar in the present case held it to be a public trust
The declaration sought for in this suit is that this is not a public trust
The High Court was wrong in holding that the suit under section 8 of the Act cannot be regarded as a suit against the Government
The Full Bench held that neither the Government nor the Registrar was competent to give any relief to any person who felt aggrieved by the order of the Registrar
The following provisions of the Act are important to be noticed
The Collector shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trust the principal office or the principal place of business of which is situate in his district
Within three months from the date on which section 4 comes into force in any area or from the date on which a public trust is created the working trustee of every public trust shall apply to the Registrar having jurisdiction for the registration of the public trust
On receipt of an application the Registrar shall make an inquiry as contemplated in section 5 of the Act
The Regis trar then shall record his finding with reasons
The Regis trar shall cause entries to be made in the register
Any person aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar may within six months from the date of the publication of the notice institute a suit in a civil court to have such finding set aside or modified
In every such suit the civil court shall give notice to the State Government through the Regis trar and the State Government if it so desires shall be made a party to the suit
All monies belonging to a public 1  2 54IA 338
995 trust shall be kept in a Scheduled Bank
No sale mortgage exchange or gift of any immoveable property and no lease for a period exceeding seven years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non agricultural land or a building belonging to a public trust shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Registrar
The Budget of every public trust where the gross annual income of which exceeds one thousand rupees shall be submitted to the Registrar
The Registrar shall have powers to enter on and inspect or cause to be entered on and in spected any property belonging to a public trust or to call for any return statement account or report as contem plated in section 22 of the Act
If the Registrar finds any defects in the administration of the public trust the Registrar may require the working trust as to submit an explanation
The Registrar has power as contemplated in section 26 of the Act to direct the trustee to apply to court for directions in certain cases
If the trustee fails to do so the Registrar shall himself make an application
The State Government may make rules for the purposes men tioned in the Act
These provisions indicate that the Registrar is a Public Officer
The word act purporting to be done in official capacity have been construed to apply to non feasance as well as to misfeasance
The word act extends to illegal omissions
See Prasaddas vs Bennerjee1
No distinction can be made between acts done illegally and in bad faith and acts done bona fide in official capacity
See Bhagchand Dagadusa s case supra
Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure therefore is attracted when any suit is filed against a Public Officer in respect of any act pur porting to be done by such Public Officer in his official capacity
The language of section 80 of the Code of Civil Proce dure is that a notice is to be given against not only the Government but also against the Public Officer in respect of any act purpoting to be done in his official capacity
The Registrar is a Public Officer
The order is an act purport ing to be done in his official capacity
In the present case the suit is to set aside the order made by a Public Officer in respect of an act done in the discharge of his official duties
Therefore notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was required
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside
Parties will pay and bear their own costs
MR Appeal al lowed


Summary:
The respondent filed this suit against the order of the Registrar of Public Trust Amraoti declaring the Ganjanan Maharaj Sansthan of Mangrul Dastagir to be a public trust
The Additional District Judge s order dismissing the suit was Upheld in appeal by the Single judge of the High Court on account of the respondent s failure to serve a notice under section 80 CPC
Allowing a Letters Patent Appeal a Full Bench of the High Court held that section 80 CPC was not applicable to suits filed under section 8 of the MP Public Trusts Act 1951
Allowing the appeal the Court HELD Section 8 of the Act indicates that the suit contem plated there is against the public officer in his official capacity within the meaning of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The words Act purporting to be done in official capacity apply to non feasance as well as to misfeasance
No distinction can be made between acts done illegally and in bad faith and acts done bonafide in offi cia1 capacity
994 C 995 D Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand vs Union of India  referred to
Bhagchand Dagadusa vs Secretary of State for India in Coun cil and others  Prasaddas vs Bennerjee ILR  applied