Article 80, paragraph 1, provides that a period of two months has not elapsed from the date of written notification in the manner provided for in this article, no action may be brought against the Government or against a public official for an act allegedly committed by that public official in his or her official capacity. The article is mandatory and does not allow exceptions. Thus, the termination requirement is mandatory. It should be noted, however, that if a public official acts without competence, the notification requirement is not mandatory. Its purpose seems to give the government or public official the opportunity to examine the legal situation and settle the claim without dispute. The Government may waive the notification requirement; The waiver may be express or implied. The notification requirement causes great inconvenience to litigants, especially if they seek immediate redress against the government. In order to minimize difficulties for litigants, a new clause (20) was inserted into article 80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the 1970 Law amending the Code of Civil Procedure. The clause provides that the court may authorize a person to take legal action against the government or a public official without respecting the two-month notice period if the relief sought is immediate and urgent. Before granting this exemption, the Court must satisfy itself of the immediate and urgent need. It should be noted that Article 80 of the CCP does not apply to an action against a public company. Consequently, in the event that the action is brought against the body governed by public law. Therefore, such notification is not necessary where the action is brought against a body governed by public law.
Section 80 does not apply to an action brought against the government before the Court of Appeal under the Motor Vehicle Act. Article 80 of the CCP. does not apply to a written request against the government or a public official, the notification requirement under Article 80 of the CCP does not have to be satisfied with Article 82 of the CCP. According to this article, in the event of an action brought by or against the Government or the public official, the decree shall fix a time limit within which it must be executed and, if the decree is not complied with, within the specified period and within three months from the date of publication. If no date has been set, the Court shall report the Government`s decision. Therefore, a decree against the government or a public official is not immediately enforceable. The Court of Justice must fix the period within which the decree must be executed and, failing that, a period of three months from the date of the decree shall be deemed to be the period within which it must be executed. If the order is not granted within that period, the court shall report on the decision of the Government. Every problem has its own cure.
For the purposes of administrative action, such remedies help to prevent the repetition of extraordinary remedies available to individuals against the illegality of an illegality. However, they do not offer full reparation to the injured person. The access of individuals to ordinary courts and remedies may be restricted by the existence of certain State privileges and immunities. These privileges, immunities, although justified at the time they were born, are hardly justified in a democratic society. However, the State enjoys certain privileges and immunities, and it may be necessary for it to enjoy certain privileges and immunities. Administrative law is redefining these privileges and immunities in order to reconcile them with the needs of modern times. The Constitution clearly states that the executive power of the Union and of any State extends to « the exercise of commercial or industrial activity, the acquisition, possession and disposal of property and the conclusion of contracts for any purpose whatsoever ». The Constitution therefore provides that a government may prosecute or be sued on its behalf. Similar provisions are contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the foregoing provisions do not extend or limit the scope of State responsibility; They simply represent the possibility of a repair. The extent of liability will be considered separately.
Administrative privileges and immunities in trials The various privileges available to the government under various statutes are as follows: The judiciary in the United States shares the same concern of Congress, which is reflected in the Freedom of Information Act of 1966. Justice Douglas noted: « Secrecy within government is fundamentally undemocratic and perpetuates bureaucratic errors. Open discussion based on a broad information debate on issues of public interest is vital to our national health. To allow access to federal government sessions, Congress passed the Sunshine Act, 1977 If the above three conditions are met, the doctrine of stopping promissory notes applies. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is necessary to control the arbitrary powers of the state, and it would certainly serve this purpose by protecting the contractual freedom of citizens. Recently, the focus has been on the government`s promises, particularly in the area of contract law and commercial transactions. It follows that protection must be afforded to an ordinary citizen who invests his assets on the basis of the government`s promise only to find that the government is not keeping its promise. Endnotes: (3) Tribal leaders tasked with initiating legal proceedings before tribal authorities or tribal courts to enforce tribal law have the privilege of withholding their mental procedures and reasoning when deciding on a matter referred to them to decide whether or not to initiate such legal proceedings. In India, the Official Secrets Act of 1923 criminalizes any disclosure and use of official information unless expressly authorized. The Indian and English courts rejected the concept of the government`s final right to withhold a document. But there is still too much secrecy, which is the main cause of administrative errors.
The Indian Constitution does not explicitly provide for the right to information as a fundamental right, although constitutional philosophy amply supports it. Similarly, art. 19 (a) Freedom of thought and expression and 21 The right to life and personal liberty would become irrelevant if information were not freely accessible Article 39 (a), (b) and (c) of the Constitution provides for adequate means of subsistence and an equitable distribution of the material resources of the community in order to curb the concentration of wealth and means of production.