- (1.)This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 03/04/2002 in dismissing the petitioner's/ 1st defendant's application filed in I.A.No.1593/2001 in O.S.No.654/1993 on the file of the VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to reject the plaint for want of notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff who filed the said suit for recovery of the damages of Rs.5,00,000/- against the 1st defendant (petitioner herein) for malicious prosecution of the plaintiff in C.C.No.1/1990 under different heads along with interest and costs. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
(2.)The brief facts of the case are as follows. The plaint was filed on 10/06/1993. Defendant No.1 filed written statement on 09/04/1994. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has submitted a plan for construction of his house to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for sanction in the year 1986 but the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad rejected the same. Then the plaintiff applied to the Government for relaxation of the rules. At the relevant point of time, the 1st defendant who was working as Secretary to the Municipal Administration. As his application was not processed by the 1st defendant and another person Sri G.V.Ramana Reddy,who was working as Special Architech:Cum:Additional Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, he had to make applications before the Ministers and the Hon'ble Chief Minister. On 24/02/1987, the petitioner made a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the said application was endorsed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 17/03/1987 and he directed the 1st defendant to put up a note in a week and send the file to him. But the 1st defendant directed Sri G.V.Ramana Reddy to put up a note and on 21/06/1987 by side tracking the issue of the plaintiff's appeal stating that certain allegations have been made against him which are defamatory and accordingly obtained orders in G.O.Ms.No.653 Municipal Administration dated 15/07/1987 granting permission to himself and his subordinate to prosecute the plaintiff on their behalf for making alleged defamatory allegations without considering whether the allegations of the plaintiff are reasonable and probable.It is stated that the allegations made in his applications are that he is a medical graduate and he is in need of a shelter for his self occupation and, therefore, he wanted to construct a house in the place of his old house but the Municipal Corporation refused to approve the house plan filed on 19/12/1985 and, therefore, he had to approach the Government and accordingly made a representation before the concerned Municipal Administration Minister on 29/09/1986 but there was no reply. It is stated that there was indifferent and callous attitude of bureaucracy forcing him to chase the file from time to time and he had to visit more than 20 times to the office of the 1st respondent. In that context, it is stated that the 1st respondent owns a palatial building at Visakhapatnam while his tenure as District Collector and he was not a member of the Jubilee Hills Housing Society when it was formed and his wife was made a member of the society after he became Special Officer of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. He claims that it was under VIP quota. There is no such VIP quota in Housing Society's Bye-laws. He managed to get 1500 Sq.Yds to his wife and constructed another palatial building at Hyderabad.He has possessed several houses leave alone his source of income by abuse of his authority.
(3.)While possessing a house constructed with the public exchequer having obtained loan from the Government he is enjoying the said premises also. He made allegations against the concerned Ministers and Additional Secretary to the Municipal Administration also. It is stated that the 1st defendant managed to get the orders for the prosecution of the plaintiff under Section 199 Criminal Procedure Code for the alleged offence of the defamation relating to imputation against the 1st defendant namely, C.Arjun Rao, IAS, Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department by the aforesaid orders and accordingly Public Prosecutor was made to take steps to prosecute the plaintiff in C.C. No.1/1987 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad which was renumbered as C.C.No.1/1990 on the file of the II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. However, it is stated that the plaintiff was acquitted. Thus, it is stated by the plaintiff that the 1st defendant by abusive of his authority as Secretary to Government obtained the sanction orders to prosecute the plaintiff in the aforesaid orders. It is stated that nobody made any enquiry on the allegations made by the petitioner and no action has been taken against the 1st respondent on the allegations made by the plaintiff in the aforesaid representation.But, on the other hand, the petitioner was prosecuted maliciously. It is stated that an unwarranted criminal charge was brought against the plaintiff for defamation which itself is an injury to the plaintiff's reputation and, therefore, he is entitled to seek damages. It is relevant to extract Paras 11 to 14 of the plaint are follows as follows:
"Para 11: The unwarranted criminal charge brought against the plaintiff for defamation is itself an injury to plaintiff's reputation and is therefore entitled to seek damages. The term 'malice' denotes spite or hatred against an individual but it is often difficult to infer spite from the conduct of a person.It is said that the devil does not know the mind of man. Thus, it a suit for a malicious prosecution, the ordinary meaning of 'malice' cannot be determined by any subjective standard. So the term 'malice' must be considered as 'malice animus' thereby denoting that the party is actuated by an improper motive.In the instant case, the illegal sanction was obtained by the first defendant to prosecute the plaintiff not based on honest belief in the guilt of the plaintiff. Further, the first defendant is aware of the innocence of the accused and he knew that the prosecution is groundless and still with malice, prosecuted him and persisted and dragged the criminal proceedings in the matter for over five years. Further it is manifestly clear that the first defendant did not commence the prosecution for vindication of justice, but his sole object to prosecute him is to malign the plaintiff before the public on purely personal considerations in the matter.

Para 12: The prosecution of the plaintiff ended in an acquittal after the first defendant obtained special invalid sanction and prosecuted him. Further, the judgment established that the prosecution lacked reasonable and probable cause and further, the first defendant acted maliciously. The term 'reasonable cause' must show that the causes must conform to the standards of a reasonable and prudent man and the term 'probable' should show that the causes may result in the proof of the guilt. Para 13: When the Government of A.P. Housing Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, in G.O.Ms.39-MA dated 21/01/1982 amended the Zonal Regulations of the Hyderabad Development Area 1981 and made exemptions to be granted for development of any site, sub-division or layout within certain limitations as per Ex.D.2 in the judgment and when the plaintiff sought for exemption within the said limitations only, the first defendant with the active connivance of Special Architech:Cum:Addl.Secretary failed to perform a public duty imposed in statute upon him.Thus, the plaintiff has got a right to represent against him to the Government for failing to perform that duty or for wrongfully performing it. The amendment of Zonal Regulations is done to protect and benefit the public in general and the duty created by the statute is of a public duty. The plaintiff sustained special damage beyond what he might sustain in common with the rest of the public as a consequence of the first defendant's infringement as the building, which is within the permissible limits, was demolished causing a loss of about 20,000/-. This is direct consequence of the breach by the first defendant since he did not perform his statutory duties and gave sanction. Further the first defendant vindictively harassed and prosecuted him and put him an ignominy. The first defendant is thus liable for both misfeasance and nonfeasance as he neglected to sanction the building improvements to prosecute him in a criminal case.

Para 14: It is not an error of judgment or bona fide exercise of authority to seek an immunity as a public servant, since all his actions were done out of malice and wanton negligence and thus illegal and no protection can be given or sought by him. Thus, there is a remedy for nonperformance of the same is the result of negligence or malicious design and the plaintiff can seek for redressal by suing the first defendant in his individual capacity for acts done or performed as a private individual. The first defendant was a public servant when he acted in the manner complained of cannot effect the character in which is sued. Thus, the 1st defendant cannot be afforded any protection enjoyed by any public servant or Govt official in such matters.