# STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SATYA NARAIN PRASAD

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 198
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-10-30
- **Bench:** S. M. Sik.Ri, G. K. Mitter, P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-uttar-pradesh-v-satya-narain-prasad-4900
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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 particular 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 Government'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 E201 Al
In the present case the body of the notice did not fulfil the above requirement of s. 10.
Merely because the notice was signed by the Executive Engineer an.d mentioned s. 10 it could not be said that the Executive 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 th

## Text

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 particular 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 Government'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 E201 Al
In the present case the body of the notice did not fulfil the above requirement of s. 10.
Merely because the notice was signed by the Executive Engineer an.d mentioned s. 10 it could not be said that the Executive 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 Northern India
Ferries Act and included as clause 14 of your lease
agreement that on expiry of six months notice from
today, the lease of the above mentioned ferry in your
favour as lessee will be terminated."
Section I 0 of the Act, referred to iitl the notice, rea<ls as
follows :
'The State Government may cancel the lease of the
tolls of any public ferry on the expiry of six months
notice in writing to the lessee of its intention to cancel
such lease.
When any lease is cadlcelled under this
section, the Magistrate of the District in which such ferry
is situate shall pay to the lessee such compensation as
such Magistrate may, with the previous sanction of the
State Government, award."
The notice expired on January 21. 1954, and on February 17,
1954, the notice termina·.ing the lease under s. 1 O was given.
Jn
the meantime, the respondent had given a notice under s. 80,
C.P.C., and on February 18, 1954, he filed a suit challenging the
order of termination of the kasc.
The plaintiff h•1d prayed for
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 s.c.R.
a permanent injunction restraining the State from determining the
lease and taking over possession of the Qazitolla Ferry.
The Trial Court decreed the suit. The State appealed and the
Civil· Judge, Ghazipur, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.
The High Court held that the notice dated July 22, 1953, did
not comply with the provisions of s. 10 of the Act. Katju, 1.,
observed:
"There must be a notice in writing saying that the
lease shall be cancelled after the expiry of six months
from the date of the ;notice.
Furthermore, the notice
must show that it is the intention of the State Government
that lease should be cancelled after the expiry of six.
months.
It is manifest that the notice on the face of it
should show that the State Government intends that the
lease shall be terminated after the expiry of six months
from the date of the notice. In the notice given by
Sri C. D. Mathur, there is nothing to indicate that the
State Government had decided that the lease should be
cancelled. The notice on the face of it shows that it
was given by the Executive Engineer. It was open to
the appellant to interpret the notice to mean that the
Executive E;ngineer desired to terminate the lease and
it did not show that the· State Government also intended
that the lease should be terminated."
In construing s. 10 of the Act it has to be borne in mind 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 a
Jessee 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 particular business.
In this context the notice of
intention to cancel the lease cannot be an empty formality.
The
notice must be such that the Jessee can safely act ·upon it and
regulate his affairs. It follows from this that the notice must on
the face of it comply with all the requirements of 5. 10. The first
requisite of a valid notice under s. 10 is that it must express· the
intention of the Government.
The body of the notice in this case
does not do so.
It is urged that the notice is signed by C. D.
Mathur, Executive Engineer, and mentions s. 10 of the Act, and
these facts should have led the Jessee to conclude that the Executive Engineer was expressing Government's intention. It is not
disputed that Government can authorise an officer, either by a
general order or a special order to give a notice of Government's
intention.
But in that event, the officer should say so in the
notice.
An officer of a Government has no general authority to
act on its behalf.
Even if he holds out on behalf of the Government that he has th~ right to Jo a particular thing, the right niust
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
U.P. STATE v. S. N. PRASAD (Sikri, /.)
201
in fact exist.
In cannot be that the lessee must speculate at his
peril as to what is the true position.
It seems to us that in view
of these considerations a illotice under s. 10 of the Act must on its
face show that what is being conveyed is Government's intention
to cancel a lease and that it is being conveyed either by Government itself or an officer duly authQrised on its behalf.
It is urged that this particular ground was not mentioned in
the plaint.
But the validity of the notice was challenged and it is
not necessary that every legal ground of challenge should have
been stated ill1 the plaint.
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.
M 6 Sup. Cf/70-14