P.Chatterjee, J. - (1.) The short question involved in these proceedings is whether the notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code need be served upon the State of Jammu and Kashmir if a suit is instituted against that State in Calcutta.
(2.) Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows: "No suit shall be instituted against the Government, or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of (c) in the case of a State against a State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the District." The question is whether the territory of Jammu and Kashmir is a State and whether that State is a State Government within the meaning of Section 80(c). I have been referred to Article 1 of the Constitution which refers to the State in India and Article 1(2) is as follows: "The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in Parts A, B and C of the First Schedule."
(3.) I understand that the territory of Jammu and Kashmir was formerly in Part B but by another amendment of the Constitution, namely, the 7th Amendment the territory of Jammu and Kashmir has become a State within Part A. Therefore it is impossible to say that the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Government of that State is not a State Government, nor can it be said that it is not a State within the meaning of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, notice under Section 80 of the Code was required to be served if a suit was to be instituted against that State. But the trial court held otherwise. According to the trial court, the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and therefore, notice under Section 80 C. P. C, would not be necessary.;