STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus SATYA NARAIN PRASAD

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 198 · Decided: 30-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

198 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
SATYA NARAIN PRASAD 
October 30, 1969 
[S. M. SIK.RI, G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Northern India Ferries Ac/, 1878 (17 of 1818), s. IO-Notice under 
section must be given by or under authority ojl State Government .. 
Pleadings-Validity of notice challenged in suit-Not necessary to 
,'i/ate every legal ground in support of challenge. 
The respondent was granted the lease of a public ferry by the State 
of Uttar Pradesh for a period of three years. Under s. 10 of the Northern 
India Ferries Act, 1878 the State Government was empowered to cancel 
such a lease on the expiry of six months notice in writing to the lessee 
of its intention to cancel the lease. 
Befcte the expiry of the full term 
of his lease the respondent's lease was ordered to be ,terminated, the notice 
under s. 10 having been given by the Executive Engineer. In a suit for 
permanent injunction restraining the State Government from terminating 
his lease and taking possession of the ferry, the respondent challenged 
the validity of the notice unde'r s. I 0 given by the Executive Engineer. 
The suit was decreed by the trial court, and the trial court's decree was 
affirmed in second appeal by the High Court. The State appealed by 
special leave to this Court. 
The requirements of a notice under s. 10 
of the Act fell for consideration. 
HELD : ( i) In construing s. 10 of the Act it has to be borne in nund 
that it deals with the cancellation of a lease of tolls of a public ferry. In 
other words, once the notice is effective valuable rights of the lessee come 
to an end. This is recognised by the Legislature by providing a six 
months' notice. 
This period is given so that he can wind up this parti-
cular business. In this context the notice of intention to cancel the lease 
cannot be an empty formality. 
The notice must be such that the lessee 
cait safely act upon it and reiJllate his affairs; he must not speculate at 
his peril as to what is the true position. Therefore a notice undelr s. 10 
of the Act must on its face show that what is being conveyed is Govern-
ment's intention to cancel a lease and that it is being conveyed either by 
the Government itself or an officer duly authorised on its behalf. [200 E-
201 Al 
In the present case the body of the notice did not fulfil the above re-
quirement of s. 10. 
Merely because the notice was signed by the Exe-
cutive Engineer an.d mentioned s. 10 it could not be said that the Execu-
tive Engineer was cxpTessing the intention of the Government. An officer 
of the Government has no general authority to act on its behalf. Even 
if he holds out on behalf of the Government that he has the right to do 
a particular thing. the right must in fact exist. [200 G-HJ 
(ii) When the validity of the notice was challenged in the plaint it 
was not necessary that every legal ground of challenge should have been 
stated therein. [20 I B-Cj 
C1vn. APPELLATE JuRrsmcnoN: Civil Appeal No: 1117 of 
1966. 
A 
c 
D 
E 
11 
G 
H 
U.P. STATE >'. S. N. PRASAD (Sikri, J.) 
199 
A 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
8 
October 11, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 81 of 1957. 
C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for the appellant. 
L. M. Singhvi and U. P. Singh, for the respondent. 
The Judgment ct the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad i;n Second 
Appeal No. 81 of 1957, whereby the High Ccurt (S. N. Katju, J.) 
allowed the appeal, set ·aside the decree of the court below and 
C 
decreed the suit in terms of the decree passed by the Trial Court. 
A very short point arises in this appeal and this is whether the 
notice dated July 22, 1953, which we will reprqduce presently, 
was in compliance with the provisions of s. 10 of the Northern 
India Ferries Act, 1878-hereinafter referred to as the Act. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
In order to appreciate the points raised before us it is necessary 
to give a few facts. 
Sa1ya Narain Prasad, respondent before us, 
was granted a lease of ·oazi Tolla Ferry for three years on October 
18, 1951. The agreed :ent was Rs. 46,500/-. 
Before the date 
of the expiry of the leas~. G. D. Mathur, Exec11tive Eugineer, 
Banaras Provincial Division, gave a notice to the respondent, dated 
July 22, 19 5 3, i.n the following terms : 
"Subject Lease of Qazitola Ferry Notice is hereby 
given to you under Section 10 of the Northe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.