WP(C) 28/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.NK SINGH Heard Mr.R.Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Roy, learned GA a ppearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Taking into consideration of the case of the petitioner made out in the present writ petition, this Court is of considered view that there is no point in lingering the present writ petition inasmuch as this writ petition can be disposed of with a simple direction. It is not required to delve deep into t he factual matrix for the order proposing to pass in the present writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner is a registered owner of the Ma ruti Van bearing Registration No.AS-16/2209, Chasis No.ST-91-IN-848392, Engine N o.F 8B-IN-537650. It is also stated that the said Maruti Van of the petitioner, in collusion with the driver had been forcibly taken over by the respondent No.4 , Smti Rahila Brahma; who lodged an ejahar, which was registered as Dhaligaon PS Case No.37 of 2006 under Section 420/504/506 IPC. It is alleged that the respondent No.3, Shri Rustam Raj Brahma, S.I., had taken up the said case for investigation. The said Maruti Van was give n in zima to respondent No.4 by an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bonga igaon dated 28.08.2006. Against the zima order dated 28.08.2006 the petitioner f iled revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, who passed order d irecting the I.O., to give interim custody of the Van to the petitioner. The O.C ., Dhaligaon P.S directed the petitioner to take zima of the said Van from the D haligaon P.S. Ultimately, the concerned I.O., had submitted charge sheet of th e said P.S.Case No.37 of 2006 under Section 420/504/506 IPC against the petition er. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after full-length trial had acquitted the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 16.03.2009 passed in GR Case No.21 1/2006 of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon. It is further case of the petitioner that the said Van is lying in off road condition in the field of the New Bongaigaon P.P. The petitioner als o prayed the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon, for examination of t he said Van for determining expenditure for repairing the said Van. Accordingly, the MVI, Chirang, had been directed to inspect the said Van. The MVI, Chirang h ad submitted his report dated 03.04.2008 that an amount of Rs.50,000/- will be r equired for repairing the said Van. The petitioner, through his counsel issued legal notice under Se ction 80 of the CPC to (1) The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Home, Dispur; (2) The S.P., Bongaigaon District, PO & Dist, Bongaigaon; (3) S hri Rustam Raj Brahma, S/o Brajendra Bnrahma, S.I., of Police, permanent residen t of village-Odlaguri, PS Gosaigaon, Dist.Kokrajhar, presently resident of Dhubr i, PO & Dist, Dhubri, Assam and (4) Smti Rahila Brahma, w/o late Janata Brahma, Village-Laojuripara, PS. Dhaligaon, Dist Chirang (BTAD), Assam, that the petitio ner intends to institute a suit against the Government of Assam, Department of H ome and others for the relief that they are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner as compensation for damage to the sai d van, loss of earning of the said van, mental pain and suffering etc. with an i nterest at the rate of 18% from 25.04.2006 till releasing the said amount. Copy of the legal notice under Section 80 CPC dated 15.06.2009 is available at Annexu re-V to the writ petition. It is further case of the petitioner that the State respondents do not care to give reply to the said legal notice. Mr.P.Roy, learned GA by relying on the decision of the Apex Cour t in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N Vs Union of India : (2005) 6 SCC 344 su bmits that the respondents are duty bound to give reply to the said legal notice dated 15.06.2009. The Apex Court in Salem Bar Assn case (supra) held that Secti on 80 (1) of the CPC requires prior notice of two months to be served on the Gov ernment as a condition for filing a suit except when there is urgency for interi m order in which case the court may not insist on the rigid rule of prior notice . The underlying object is to curtail litigation. The object is also to curtail the area of dispute and controversy. The Apex Court further held that whenever any statue requires se rvice of notice as a condition precedent for filing of suit or other proceedings against it, officer who shall be made responsible is to ensure that replies to notices under Section 80 of CPC or similar provisions are sent within the period stipulated in a particular legislation. Para 38 and 39 of the SCC in Salem Bar Assn case (supra) read as follows: 38. Section 80(1) of the Code requires prior notice of two months to be s erved on the Government as a condition for filing a suit except when there is ur gency for interim order in which case the court may not insist on the rigid rule of prior notice. The two months’ period has been provided for so that the Gover nment shall examine the claim put up in the notice and has sufficient time to se nd a suitable reply. The underlying object is to curtail litigation. The object is also to curtail the area of dispute and controversy. Similar provisions also exist in various other legislations as well. Wherever the statutory provision re quires service of notice as a condition precedent for filing of suit and prescri bed period therefore, it is not only necessary for the Governments or department s or other statutory bodies to send a reply to such a notice but it is further n ecessary to properly deal with all material points and issues raised in the noti ce. The Governments, government departments or statutory authorities are defenda nts in a large number of suits pending in various courts in the country. Judicia l notice can be taken of the fact that in a large number of cases either the not ice is not replied to or in the few cases where a reply is sent, it is generally vague and evasive. The result is that the object underlying Section 80 of the C ode and similar provisions gets defeated. It not only gives rise to avoidable li tigation but also results in heavy expenses and costs to the exchequer as well. A proper reply can result in reduction of litigation between the State and the c itizens. In case a proper reply is sent either the claim in the notice may be ad mitted or the area of controversy curtailed or the citizen may be satisfied on k nowing the stand of the State. There is no accountability in the Government, Cen tral or State or the statutory authorities in violating the spirit and object of Section 80. 39. These provisions cast an implied duty on all Governments and States and statutory authorities concerned to send appropriate reply to such notices. Havin g regard to the existing state of affairs, we direct al Governments, Central or State or other authorities concerned, whenever any statute requires service of n otice as a condition precedent for filing of suit or other proceedings against i t, to nominate, within a period of three months, an officer who shall be made re sponsible to ensure that replies to notices under Section 80 or similar provisio ns are sent within the period stipulated in a particular legislation. The replie s shall be sent after due application of mind. Despite such nomination, if the c ourt finds that either the notice has not been replied to or the reply is evasiv e and vague and has been sent without proper application of mind, the court shal l ordinarily award heavy costs against the Government and direct it to take appr opriate action against the officer concerned including recovery of costs from hi m. Taking into consideration of submission of learned counsel for t he petitioner and also the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Salem Bar Assn c ase (supra), this court is of considered view that it would be proper on the par t of the State respondents to give reply to Section 80 notice of the petitioner inasmuch as proper reply can result in reduction of litigation between the parti es and also to curtail the area of dispute and controversy. Order accordingly. In other words, it is made clear that the Secretary to the Gover nment of Assam, respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, the Superintendent of Polic e, Bongaigaon District, shall give reply to the said legal notice under Section 80 of the CPC, dated 15.06.2009 within a month from the date of receipt of certi fied copy of this judgment and order. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is d isposed of.