IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7291 of 2010 The Principal, D.B.College, Jainagar, P.O. & P.S.- Jainagar, Distt.- Madhubani Versus 1. Raj Kumar Rungta S/O Shri Mahabir Rungta R/O Mohalla- Mirchaipatti, P.S. & Town- Jainagar, Distt.- Madhubani 2. L.N.Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga, Represented By Its Vice Chancellor 3. The Registrar, L.N.Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga ------------------- 02/ 28.09.2011 Heard Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner for quashing the order dated 18.3.2010, passed by the learned Sub- Judge I, Madhubani in Money Suit No. 7 of 2003, whereby the learned Sub-Judge has been pleased to reject the petition filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 for amending the written statement. The amendment so prayed has been placed on record at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The defendant- petitioner by the amendment prayed seeks to add the issue of non- service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) as well as the objections under Section 80A of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), prohibiting filing of any suit for enforcing the provisions of the University Act, Statutes, regulations etc. framed 2 thereunder, in the written statement. The learned court below by the impugned order has rejected the prayer, inter alia, on grounds that the amendment prayed was belated and without supportive reasons for the delay. Considering the amendment prayed regarding non service of notice as required under Section 80 of the Code, it is by now well settled that Section 80 of the Code mandates a service of notice on a government or a public officer in a suit instituted against the Government or a public officer. The petitioner being a Principal of the College does not either fall within the definition of the term 'Government' or within the category of a public officer as defined under Section 2(17) of the Code. The issue stands answered by a judgment of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1974 Patna 376. A similar objection had been raised in the said case. It was held that merely having a regulatory and financial control of the Government over a Corporation did not qualify its officers within the definition of a public officer as provided under Section 2 (17) of the Code. On the same analogy the provisions of Section 80 of the Code would not be applicable on a university employee. Insofar as an objection in the light of the provisions of Section 80A of the Act is concerned, the said provision merely provides that no law suit or proceeding shall lie in Civil Court with respect to implementation of the provision of the Act, the statutes, regulations etc. framed thereunder. The relief prayed in the suit in question does not seek to enforce the provisions of the Act rather the plaintiff merely seeks to recover his money 3 from the defendants. Thus the prayer made by the defendant- petitioner for incorporation of the objections raised under the provisions of Section 80 of the Code and Section 80A of the Act is wholly misconceived and irrelevant for the issue involved in the suit rather is an attempt on the part of the defendant-petitioner to delay the proceedings. The prayer has been rightfully rejected by the learned court below and requires no interference. The writ petition is dismissed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)