Private Defendants Lack Locus Standi to Challenge Suits for Want of Statutory Notice to Public Authorities

The plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1–2) filed a representative suit against the petitioner (defendant No. 1) and local authorities (defendant Nos. 2–4).

They alleged that defendant No. 1 was raising illegal commercial construction on Survey No. 488/A in Saghli, despite a resolution dated 03.10.2023 by the Gram Panchayat rejecting commercial use.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of illegality, demolition of the structure, and a permanent injunction.

Defendant No. 1 and the authorities filed separate applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint, primarily on the grounds of lack of statutory notice.

The Trial Court rejected both applications on 05.04.2025; while the authorities did not appeal, defendant No. 1 challenged the order via this revision application.

1. Whether a suit can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) for lack of statutory notice under Section 270 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and Section 80 of the CPC when the objection is raised by a private party.

2. Whether the plaint should be rejected if only one of multiple reliefs sought is allegedly barred by law.

Section 270 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, which mandates a one-month prior notice before instituting an action against a Panchayat or its officers.

Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requiring a two-month notice for suits against the Government or public officers in their official capacity.

The principle that the right to statutory notice is a protective right that can be waived by the authority it protects, and a private individual cannot invoke its absence to seek rejection of a plaint.

The Court observed that Section 270(2) of the Panchayat Act and Section 80 of the CPC are intended to protect public bodies and officials, not private defendants.

Since the public authorities (defendant Nos. 2–4) did not challenge the Trial Court’s rejection of their Rule 11 application, the issue of notice attained finality regarding them.

The court held that a private individual (defendant No. 1) has no locus standi to raise the plea of "want of notice" as that right belongs exclusively to the government or public body, which may choose to waive it.

The court noted that the plaintiffs sought multiple reliefs, including injunctions specifically against the private defendant. Even if one relief (demolition by the authority) were barred for lack of notice, the entire plaint cannot be rejected if other causes of action against the private party remain.

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application and sustained the Trial Court's order.

The Trial Court was directed to decide the suit on merits without being influenced by these observations.