Draft Notice to Public Authority / Official

Complaint / Notice u/s 80 CPC, 1908

(Make necessary changes in the complaint / notice, as may be required considering the
circumstances of each case)
Date:
From,
The name & address of the Complainant

To,
The Designation & Address of the Public Official / Authority
(Complaint must be given to a person who is directly responsible to address / solve the issue
raised in the Complaint / Notice)

Subject:

Dear Sir,

(1) Gist of grievance:

(2) Brief / material facts of the case. Mention other relevant points as you think necessary.

(3) Your attention is invited to an Apex Court / High Court ruling, which has expressly dealt
with the issue which is raised in this Notice. (If there is any Apex Court / High Court ruling you
have)

(3) Therefore, you are requested –

(a) ……the specific query which needs explanation / specific action from the said public
authority / official;

(a) To act in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex court / High court stated
hereinabove.

(b) The public authority is requested, in all seriousness and with due care and attention, make an
inquiry into facts of the case and other submissions made hereinbefore.

(c) However, if the Public authority / official, in all seriousness and with due care and attention,
after taking into consideration my / our submissions made herein; and after applying its mind to
it, has reasons to believe and is satisfied that submissions made here by me/us are devoid of
merit, then, the Public authority / official may please record its such satisfaction, and please
make a reply to me/us about such satisfaction, within 30 / 60 days of receipt of this Complaint /
Notice. The recording of satisfaction must deal with the substantial points which have been
raised herein and cover the relevant points and eschew irrelevancies and assures careful
administrative consideration.

(d) If the Public authority / official fails / neglects to answer the queries raised hereinabove /
neglects to take action as request, the complainant shall have no option but to adopt appropriate
legal proceedings in this regard.

(4) Your attention is invited to Judgment of SC in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu
Vs. Union of India, wherein the SC has ruled that all public authorities / public officials must
make a reasoned reply to the notices received by it. Please find Annexure “A” in this regard.

(5) Your attention is further invited to a Bombay High Court ruling which had ruled that willful
breach of judicial precedent would amount to contempt of the order of the court and the
concerned person would face the contempt proceedings accordingly. Please find Annexure “B”
in this regard.

(6) It may be asserted that you are obliged to strictly adhere to the law laid down by the Apex
court / High court, failing which you would be committing contempt of the order of the Apex
court / High court. Your attention is further invited to Rule 3 of The Rules to Regulate
Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, which empowers the SC to take Su Moto
cognizance (action on its own) of contempt of court order committed by any person.

(7) You may further be informed that every High court is empowered to effectuate the law laid
down by the Apex court, and they are also empowered to take Su Moto cognizance of the
contempt of the order of the court is committed by any person.

(8) I say that grievance of the people must be promptly and properly attended instead of waiting
and allowing for it to be translated into court litigation. It does no credit to the State to be
involved in large number of disputes as an oppressive ruler.

(9) I further say that a complaint to any public authority is the most legitimate incident of a
democracy and giving of satisfactory reply is a healthy discipline for all who exercise powers
over others.

Thanking you in the anticipation of your effective action in this regard.

With Regards

xyz.
Complainant
Attachments and Annexures
(a)
(b)
Annexure “A”

In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), (2005) 6 SCC 344,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, among other things, has observed and directed –

“…The Governments, government departments or statutory authorities are defendants in a large

number of Cases pending in various courts in the country. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact
that in a large number of cases either the notice is not replied to or in the few cases where a reply
is sent, it is generally vague and evasive. It not only gives rise to avoidable litigation 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 citizens. In case a
proper reply is sent, either the claim in the notice may be admitted or the area of controversy
curtailed, or the citizen may be satisfied on knowing the stand of the State.

Having regard to the existing state of affairs, we direct all Governments, Central or State or other
authorities concerned, whenever any statute requires service of notice as a condition precedent
for filing of suit or other proceedings against it, to nominate, within a period of three months, an
officer who shall be made responsible to ensure that replies to notices under Section 80 or similar
provisions are sent within the period stipulated in a particular legislation.

The replies shall be sent after due application of mind. Despite, if the court finds that either the
notice has not been replied to or the reply is evasive and vague and has been sent without proper
application of mind, the court shall ordinarily award heavy costs against the Government and
direct it to take appropriate action against the officer concerned including recovery of costs from
him.”.

Your further attention is invited to another Apex court observation in a case – “Whereas it is a
common experience and in fact judicially recognized by Hon'ble SC in one service matter before
it that once a decision is taken, there is a tendency to uphold it, and a representation may not
yield a fruitful purpose. Thus, attempts by aggrieved to show any logical base for his grievance
or to highlight the lack of reason in the administrative decision, to an unwilling authority, results
in rejection of the representation with perverse or no reason. It is also a common experience that
once a grievance is ventilated by an employee, he is subject to more neglect and hostile
attitude....that they are treated in a manner contrary to reason and conscience and that decision of
administrative authority smack of caprice and whims. The callous attitude of the authority often
breeds a sense of perpetual injustice. AIR 1986 SC 686.
Annexure “B”

In the case of Legrand (India) Private Limited Versus Union Of India [2008 (2) BCR 387 : 2007
(6) MhLj 146], the Bombay High Court have held that the Public authorities / persons may be
held guilty of contempt of the Court, if, in the regular discharge of their duties, they knowingly
disregard the law laid down by the said Court.

It is a case where, despite being specifically brought to the knowledge of the law being laid down
by the Bombay High Court, the Public officer acted in breach of the law laid down; and the High
Court, in the Writ jurisdiction, initiated Contempt proceedings against the said officer.

The Court held that –

(a) It is immaterial that in a previous litigation the particular petitioner before the Court was or
was not a party, but if a law on a particular point has been laid down by the High Court, it must
be followed by all authorities and tribunals in the State;

(b) The law laid down by the High Court must be followed by all authorities and subordinate
tribunals when it has been declared by the highest Court in the State and they cannot ignore it
either in initiating proceedings or deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding;

(c) If inspite of the earlier exposition of law by the High Court having been pointed out and
attention being pointedly drawn to that legal position, in utter disregard of that position,
proceedings are initiated, it must be held to be a wilful disregard of the law laid down by the
High Court and would amount to civil contempt as defined in S. 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.