[simpleaffiliate source="chitika" results="0"][/simpleaffiliate] What are the standard colours and linetypes used in CAD?
I am a Civil Engineering student and we are drawing up a site survey on CAD. What are the british or european standard linetypes for Buildings, Kerblines, Fence Lines, Lamp posts, Footpaths and manholes.
Or if you can direct me to a website that has the info that would be great!
I want to do the best job on this project! Thanks, would you know the correct linetype and colour for say, building lines, kerblines, footpath, and ramps?
imaginarykitten: In Europe, it may be the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) that sets the standard; for instance, ISO 13567-1:1998, "Technical product documentation -- Organization and naming of layers for CAD," which can be ordered from the link below. ISO standards are not free, but your university may have access to them via a database that your library pays for.
With Germany launching their Bremen and Europa into service, the British did not want to be left out in the ship building race. White Star Line began construction on their 60,000 ton Oceanic in 1928, while Cunard planned a 75,000 ton unnamed ship of their own.
Construction on the ship, then known only as "Hull Number 534", began in December 1930 on the River Clyde by the John Brown & Company Shipbuilding and Engineering shipyard at Clydebank Scotland. Work was halted in December 1931 due to the Great Depression and Cunard applied to the British Government for a loan to complete 534. The loan was granted, with enough money to complete the Queen Mary and to build a running mate, Hull No. 552 which would become the Queen Elizabeth. One condition of the loan was that Cunard would merge with the White Star Line, which was Cunard's chief British rival at the time and which had already been forced by the Depression to cancel construction on its Oceanic. Both lines agreed and the merger was completed in April 1934. Work on the Queen Mary resumed immediately and she was launched on 26 September 1934. Completion ultimately took 3 years and cost 3 million pounds sterling in total. Much of the ship's interior was designed and constructed by the Bromsgrove Guild.
The ship was named after Queen Mary, the consort of King George V. Until her launch the name she was to be given was kept a closely guarded secret. Legend has it that Cunard intended to name the ship "Victoria", in keeping with company tradition of giving its ships names ending in "ia". However, when company representatives asked the King's permission to name the ocean liner after Britain's "greatest queen", he said his wife, Queen Mary, would be delighted. And so, the legend goes, the delegation had of course no other choice but to report that No. 534 would be called RMS Queen Mary. This story was denied by company officials, and traditionally the names of sovereigns have only been used for capital ships of the Royal Navy. Some support for the story was provided by Washington Post editor Felix Morley, who sailed as a guest of the Cunard Line on the 1936 maiden voyage of the Queen Mary. In his 1979 autobiography, For the Record, Morley wrote that he was placed at table with Sir Percy Bates, chairman of the Cunard Line. Bates told him the story of the naming of the ship "on condition you won't print it during my lifetime." The name Queen Mary could also have been decided upon as a compromise between Cunard and the White Star Line, with which Cunard had recently merged, both lines had tradition of using names either ending in "ic" with White Star and "ia" with Cunard.
History (1934-1939)
Queen Mary 1936
There was already a Clyde turbine steamer named Queen Mary, so Cunard White Star reached agreement with the owners that the existing steamer would be renamed TS Queen Mary II, and in 1934 the new liner was launched by Queen Mary as RMS Queen Mary. On her way down the slipway, the Queen Mary was slowed by eighteen drag chains, which checked the liner's progress into the Clyde, a portion of which had been widened to accommodate the launch.
When she sailed on her maiden voyage from Southampton, England on 27 May 1936, she was commanded by Sir Edgar T. Britten, who had been the master designate for Cunard White Star whilst the ship was under construction at the John Brown shipyard. The Queen Mary had a gross tonnage (GT) of 80,774 tons; her rival, Normandie, which originally grossed 79,280 tonnes, had been modified the preceding winter to increase her size to 83,243 GT (an enclosed tourist lounge was built on the aft boat deck on the area where the game court was), and therefore kept the title of the largest ocean liner. The Queen Mary sailed at high speeds for most of her maiden voyage to New York until heavy fog forced a reduction of speed on the final day of the crossing.
The Observation Bar lounge. The windows were once part of the enclosed Promenade Deck turnaround; the lounge was extended forward after 1967.
The Queen Mary's design was criticized for being too traditional, especially when the Normandie's hull was revolutionary with a clipper shaped, streamlined bow. Except for her cruiser stern, she seemed to be simply an enlarged version of her Cunard predecessors from the pre World War I era. Her interior design, while mostly Art Deco, still seemed restrained and conservative when compared to the ultramodern French liner. However, the Queen Mary proved to be the more popular vessel than its larger rival, in terms of passengers carried.
In August 1936, Queen Mary captured the Blue Riband from Normandie, with average speeds of 30.14 knots (55.82 km/h) westbound and 30.63 knots eastbound. Normandie was refitted with a new set of propellors in 1937 and reclaimed the honour, but in 1938 Queen Mary took back the Blue Riband in both directions with average speeds of 30.99 knots (57.39 km/h) westbound and 31.69 knots eastbound, records which stood until lost to the SS United States in 1952.
Interior
The First Class dining room map on the Queen Mary, which tracked the ship's progress across the Atlantic Ocean.
Onboard amenities on the Queen Mary varied according to class, with First Class passengers accorded the most space and luxury. Among facilities available on board the Queen Mary, the liner featured an indoor swimming pool, salon, ship's library, children's nursery, outdoor paddle tennis court, and ship's kennel. The largest room was the first class dining room (grand salon), which spanned three stories in height and was anchored by wide columns. The indoor swimming pool facility also spanned over two decks in height.
The first class dining room featured a large map of the transatlantic crossing, with twin tracks symbolizing the winter/spring route (further south to avoid icebergs) and the summer/autumn route. During each crossing, a motorized model of the Queen Mary would indicate the vessel's progress en route.
The First Class dining room on the Queen Mary, also known as the Grand Salon.
As an alternative to the first class dining room, the Queen Mary featured a separate Verandah Grill on the Sun Deck at the upper aft of the ship. The Verandah Grill was an exclusive la carte restaurant with a capacity of approximately eighty passengers, and was converted to the Starlight Club at night. Irish writer and broadcaster, Brian Cleeve spent several months as a commis waiter on the ship in 1938, after he ran away from school. Also on board was the Observation Bar, an Art Deco styled lounge, with wide ocean views.
Woods from different regions of the British Empire were used in her public rooms and staterooms. Accommodations ranged from fully equipped, luxurious first class staterooms to modest and cramped third class cabins. Artists commissioned by Cunard in 1933 for works of art in the interior include Edward Wadsworth and A. Duncan Carse.
World War II
Arriving in New York Harbor, 20 June 1945, with thousands of U.S. troops.
In late August 1939, the Queen Mary was on a return run from New York to Southampton. The international situation led to her being escorted by the battlecruiser HMS Hood. She arrived safely, and set out again for New York on 1 September. By the time she arrived, the Second World War had started and she was ordered to remain in port until further notice alongside the Normandie. In 1940 the Queen Mary and the Normandie were joined in New York by Queen Mary's new running mate Queen Elizabeth, fresh from her secret dash from Clydebank. The three largest liners in the world sat idle for some time until the Allied commanders decided that all three ships could be used as troopships (unfortunately, the Normandie would be destroyed by fire during her troopship conversion). The Queen Mary left New York for Sydney, where she, along with several other liners, was converted into a troopship to carry Australian and New Zealand soldiers to the United Kingdom. In the conversion, her hull, superstructure and funnels were painted navy grey. Inside, stateroom furniture and decoration were removed and replaced with triple-tiered wooden bunks (which would later be replaced by standee bunks). Six miles of carpet, 220 cases of china, crystal and silver service, tapestries and paintings were removed and stored in warehouses for the duration of the war. The woodwork in the staterooms, the first-class dining room and other public areas were covered with leather. Eventually joined in troop service by the Queen Elizabeth, the two ships were the largest and fastest troopships involved in the war, often carrying as many as 15,000 men in a single voyage, and often travelling out of convoy and without escort. Their high speed meant that it was difficult for U boats to catch them.
On 2 October 1942, Queen Mary accidentally sank one of her escorts, slicing through the light cruiser HMS Curacoa off the Irish coast, with the loss of 338 lives. Due to the constant danger of being attacked by U-Boats, on board the Queen Mary Captain C. Gordon Illingworth was under strict orders not to stop for any reason, the Royal Navy destroyers accompanying the Queen were ordered to stay on course and not rescue any survivors.
The forward section of the Queen Mary was fitted with new big windows and anti-aircraft guns seen here in Long Beach.
In December 1942, the Queen Mary was carrying 16,082 American troops from New York to Great Britain, a standing record for the most passengers ever transported on one vessel. While 700 miles from Scotland during a gale, she was suddenly hit broadside by a rogue wave that may have reached a height of 28 metres (92 ft). An account of this crossing can be found in Walter Ford Carter's book, No Greater Sacrifice, No Greater Love. Carter's father, Dr. Norval Carter, part of the 110th Station Hospital on board at the time, wrote that at one point the Queen Mary "damned near capsized... One moment the top deck was at its usual height and then, swoom! Down, over, and forward she would pitch." It was calculated later that the ship tilted 52 degrees, and would have capsized had she rolled another 3 degrees. The incident inspired Paul Gallico to write his story, The Poseidon Adventure, which was later made into a film by the same name, using the Queen Mary as a stand-in for the SS Poseidon.
During the war, the Queen Mary carried British Prime Minister Winston Churchill across the Atlantic for meetings with fellow Allied forces officials on several occasions, he would be listed on the passenger manifest as "Colonel Warden" and insisted that the lifeboat assigned to him be fitted with a .303 machine gun so that he could "resist capture at all costs".
After World War II
The Queen Mary in Southampton, June 1956
From September 1946 to July 1947, Queen Mary was refitted for passenger service, adding air conditioning and upgrading her berth configuration to 711 first class, 707 cabin class and 577 tourist class passengers. Following refit, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth dominated the transatlantic passenger trade as Cunard White Star's two ship weekly express service through the latter half of the 1940s and well into the 1950s. They proved highly profitable for Cunard. But in 1958, the first transatlantic flight by a jet began a completely new era of competition for the Cunard Queens. On some voyages, winters especially, Queen Mary sailed into harbour with more crew than passengers. (But she and her sister Queen Elizabeth still averaged over 1000 passengers per crossing into the middle 1960s.) By 1965, the entire Cunard fleet was leaving a trail of red ink. Hoping to continue financing their still under construction Queen Elizabeth 2, Cunard mortgaged the majority of the fleet. Finally, under a combination of age, lack of public interest, inefficiency in a new market, and the damaging after effects of the national seamen's strike, Cunard announced that both the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth would be retired from service (the Elizabeth would leave service one year later) and were to be sold off. Many offers were submitted, but it was Long Beach, California who beat the Japanese scrap merchants. And so, Queen Mary was retired from service in 1967, while her running mate Queen Elizabeth was withdrawn in 1968. RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 took over the transatlantic route in 1969.
The Queen Mary in Long Beach
The Queen Mary from the Northern side of Long Beach harbor
After her retirement in 1967, she steamed to Long Beach, California, where she is permanently moored as a tourist attraction. From 1983 to 1993, the Queen Mary was accompanied by Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose, which was located in a large dome nearby (the dome is now used by Carnival Cruise Lines as a ship terminal, and formerly as a soundstage).
Since drilling had started for oil in Long Beach Harbor, some of the revenue had been set aside in the "Tidelands Oil Fund." Some of this money was allocated in 1958 for the future purchase of a maritime museum for Long Beach.
Conversion
When the Queen Mary was bought by Long Beach, they decided that the ship would be an iconic host and not for preserving her as an ocean liner. It had been decided to clear almost every area of the ship below C deck (called R deck after 1950 to lessen passenger confusion all the restaurants were on "R" deck) to make way for the museum. This would increase museum space to 400,000 square feet. It required removal of all the boiler rooms, the forward engine room, both turbo generator rooms, the ship stabilisers and the water softening plant. The ship's now empty fuel tanks were then filled with local mud which would keep the ship's centre of gravity and draft at the correct levels, as these critical factors had been affected by the removal of all various components and structure. Only the aft engine room and "shaft alley", at the stern of the ship, would be spared from the cutter's torch. Remaining space would be used for storage or office space. One problem that arose during the conversion was a dispute between land based and maritime unions over conversion jobs. The United States Coast Guard had final say; the Queen Mary was deemed a building, since most of her propellers had been removed and her machinery gutted. The ship was also repainted with its red water level paint a slightly higher than its old one. During the conversion the funnels were removed as it was the only practical way to lift out the the scrap materials from the engine and boiler rooms, subsiquently it was found that the funnels were held together with over thirty coats of paint and that they had to be replaced with new replica items.
A passageway in First Class accommodation, now part of the onboard hotel
With all of the lower decks nearly gutted from R deck and down, Diner's Club, the initial lessee of the ship, was to convert the remainder of the vessel into a hotel. Diner's Club Queen Mary dissolved and vacated the ship in 1970 after their parent company, Diner's Club International was sold, and a change in corporate direction was mandated amidst the conversion process. Specialty Restaurants, a Los Angeles based company that focused on theme based restaurants, would take over as master lessee the following year.
During this conversion, the plan was to convert most of her first and second class cabins on A and B decks only into hotel rooms, and convert the main lounges and dining rooms into banquet spaces. On Promenade Deck, the starboard promenade deck would be enclosed to feature an upscale restaurant and cafe called Lord Nelson's and Lady Hamilton's themed like early 19th century sailing ships. The famed and elegant Observation Bar was redecorated as a western themed bar.
The Queen Mary's bridge, now open to visitors
The smaller first class public rooms such as the Drawing Room, Library, Lecture Room and the Music studio would be stripped of most of their fittings and converted over to retail space, heavily expanding the retail presence on the ship. Two more shopping malls were built on the Sun Deck in separate spaces previously used for first class cabins and engineer's quarters.
A post war feature of the ship, the first class cinema, was removed for kitchen space for the new Promenade deck dining venues. The first class lounge and smoking room were reconfigured and converted into banquet space, while the second class smoking room would be subdivided into a wedding chapel and office space. On Sun Deck, the elegant Verandah Grill would be gutted and converted into a fast food eatery, while a new upscale dining venue would be created directly above it on Sports Deck in space once used for crew quarters. The second class lounges would be expanded to the sides of the ship and used for banqueting. On R deck, the first class dining room was reconfigured and subdivided into two banquet venues, the Royal Salon and the Windsor Room. The second class dining room would be subdivided into kitchen storage and a crew mess hall, while the third class dining room would initially be used as storage and crew space. Also on R deck, the first class Turkish bath complex, the 1930s equivalent to a spa, would be removed. The second class pool would be removed and its space initially used for office space, while the first class swimming pool would be used for hotel guests. Combined with modern safety codes, and the structural soundness of the area directly below, the swimming pool is no longer in use.
No crew cabins remain intact aboard the ship today. She now serves as a hotel, museum, tourist attraction, and for rent site for events, but her financial results have been mixed.
The Queen Mary as a tourist attraction
On 8 May 1971, the Queen Mary opened its doors to tourists. Initially, only portions of the ship were open to the public as Specialty Restaurants had yet to open its dining venues or the hotel. As a result, the ship was only open on weekends. In December of that year, Jacques Cousteau's Museum of the Sea opened, with only a quarter of the planned exhibits built. Within the decade, Cousteau's museum closed due to low ticket sales and the deaths of many of the fish that were housed in the museum. In November of the following year, the hotel opened its initial 150 guest rooms. Hyatt operated the hotel from 1974 to 1980, when the Jack Wrather Corporation signed a 66-year lease with the city of Long Beach to operate the entire property. Wrather was taken over by the Walt Disney Company in 1988, Wrather owned the Disneyland Hotel, which Disney had been trying to buy for 30 years; the Queen Mary was thus an afterthought and was never marketed as a Disney property.
First Class accommodations on the Queen Mary, converted into a present-day hotel room with modern curtains, bedding and amenities surrounded by original wood paneling, portholes and light fixtures.
Through the late eighties and early nineties, the Queen Mary continued to struggle financially. During the Disney years, Disney planned to develop a theme park on the remaining land. This theme park eventually opened a decade later in Japan as DisneySea, with a recreated oceanliner resembling the Queen Mary as its centerpiece. Hotel Queen Mary closed in 1992 when Disney gave up the lease on the ship to focus on what would become Disney's California Adventure. The tourist attraction remained open for another two months, but by the end of 1992, the Queen Mary completely closed its doors to tourists and visitors.
In February 1993, under the direction of President and C.E.O. Joseph F. Prevratil, RMS Foundation, Inc began a five-year lease with the city of Long Beach to act as the operators of the property. Later that month, the tourist attraction reopened completely, while the hotel reopened in March. In 1995, RMS's lease was extended to twenty years while the extent of the lease was reduced to simply operation of the ship itself. A new company, Queen's Seaport Development, Inc. (QSDI) came into existence in 1995 controlling the real estate adjacent to the vessel. In 1998, the City of Long Beach extended the QSDI lease to 66 years. In 2005, QSDI sought Chapter 11 protection due to a rent credit dispute with the City. In 2006, the bankruptcy court requested bids from parties interesting in taking over the lease from QSDI. The minimum required opening bid was $41M. The operation of the ship, by RMS, remained independent of the bankruptcy. In Summer 2007, the Queen Mary's lease was sold to a group named "Save the Queen" managed by Hostmark Hospitality Group, who planned to develop the land adjacent to the Queen Mary, and upgrade, renovate, and restore the Queen Mary. During the time of their management, staterooms were updated with Ipod docking stations and flatscreen TV's, the ships three funnels were repainted their original Cunard Red color, as well as the ships waterline area, The portside Promenade Deck's planking was restored and refinished, as well as work on other parts of the ship, many lifeboats were repaired and patched, and the ships kitchens were renovated with new equipment.
In late September 2009, the Queen Mary's management was taken over by Delaware North Companies, who plan to continue restoration, and renovation of the ship and its property, and work to revitalize and enhance one of the grandest ocean liners of all time.
In 2004, the Queen Mary and Stargazer Productions added Tibbies Great American Cabaret to the space previously occupied by the ship's bank and wireless telegraph room. Stargazer Productions and the Queen Mary transformed the space into a working dinner theater complete with stage, lights, sound, and scullery.
Meeting of the Queens
On 23 February 2006, the RMS Queen Mary 2 saluted her predecessor as it made its port of call in Los Angeles Harbor, while on a cruise to Mexico. The event was covered heavily by local and international media.
Ship's horn
The salute itself was carried out with the Queen Mary blowing her one working air horn in response to the Queen Mary 2 blowing her combination of two brand new horns pointing forward and an original 1932 Queen Mary horn (donated by the City of Long Beach) aimed aft. The Queen Mary originally had three whistles tuned to 55 Hz, a frequency chosen because it was low enough that the extremely loud sound of it would not be painful to human ears. Modern IMO regulations specify ships' horn frequencies to be in the range 70200 Hz for vessels that are over 200 metres (660 ft) in length. Traditionally, the lower the frequency, the larger the ship. The Queen Mary 2, being 345 metres (1,130 ft) long, was given the lowest possible frequency (70 Hz) for her regulation whistles, in addition to the refurbished 55 Hz whistle on permanent loan. 55 Hz is the lower bass "A" note found an octave up from the lowest note of a piano keyboard. The air-driven Tyfon whistle can be heard at least ten miles away.
W6RO
Queen Mary's wireless radio room
The Queen Mary's original, professionally manned wireless radio room was destroyed once the ship arrived in Long Beach. In its place an amateur radio room was created one deck above the original radio reception room with some of the discarded original radio equipment used for display purposes only. The amateur radio station with the call sign W6RO ("Whiskey Six Romeo Oscar") relies on volunteers from a local amateur radio club. They are present most of the time the ship is open to the public, and the radios can also be used by other licensed amateur radio operators.
In honor of his over forty years of dedication to W6RO and the Queen Mary, in November 2007 the Queen Mary Wireless Room was renamed The Nate Brightman Radio Room. This was announced on 28 October 2007 at Mr. Brightman's 90th birthday party by Joseph Prevratil, President and CEO of the Queen Mary.
Paranormal
The Queen Mary at night, with spotlight on the Soviet submarine B-427
Ghosts were reported on board only after permanently docked in California. Many areas are rumored to be haunted. Reports of hearing little children crying in the nursery room, actually used as the third-class playroom, and a mysterious splash noise in the drained first-class swimming pool are cited. In 1966, 18-year-old engineer John Pedder was crushed by a watertight door in the engine room during a fire drill, and his ghost is said to haunt the ship. There is also said to be the spirit of a young girl named Jackie who was murdered in the pool room haunts the first class pool onboard the ship. It is also said that men screaming and the sound of metal crushing against metal can be heard belowdecks at the extreme front end of the bow. Those who have heard this believe it to be the screams of the sailors aboard the HMS Curacoa at the moment the destroyer was split in half by the liner.
The Queen Mary operates daily paranormal themed tours, some of which have theatrics applied for dramatic effect. The ship maintains a haunted maze and expands to multiple mazes during the Halloween season.
The Queen Mary has been the subject of numerous professional paranormal investigations by printed publications like Beyond Investigation Magazine, nationally televised shows like Ghost Hunters, The Othersiders, and radio's Coast to Coast AM. The UK paranormal television program, Most Haunted, investigated the ship in a special two-part episode.
On screen
Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles. (February 2010)
In its permanent berth in Long Beach, the Queen Mary has been used as a filming location for numerous films, television episodes, and commercials. Some examples are:
Assault on a Queen (1966)
The Poseidon Adventure (1972). Some of the Poseidon ship scenes were filmed on board the Queen Mary. A 26-foot long miniature of the ship was used in special effects shots.
Beyond the Poseidon Adventure (1979)
The Gumball Rally (1976). The pier in Long Beach where the ship is located was the finish line for the cross-country race.
S.O.S. Titanic (1979), in which the Queen Mary doubled for her ill-fated predecessor.
Goliath Awaits (1981), About an ocean liner named the Goliath being sunk during World War II and the survivors forming an underwater society.
Someone to Watch Over Me (1987), The murder at the beginning of the film was filmed in the First Class swimming pool area of the Queen Mary.
Toyota's advertisement for Celica All-trac Turbo in the 1991 Long Beach Grand Prix featured the Queen Mary, with the tagline, "On 14 April, we're going streaking in front of the Queen."
Murder, She Wrote (1989), Episode entitled "The Grand Old Lady" takes place on the Queen Mary in 1947.
Bold and the Beautiful (1989)
Tidal Wave: No Escape (1997). Harve Presnell destroys the Queen Mary with an artificial tsunami.
"Triangle," an episode of The X-Files, featured the Queen Mary as the fictional Queen Anne.
Pearl Harbor (2001).
Escape from L.A. (1996).
Being John Malkovich (1999), parts of the movie were shot on board.
Fiona Apple's "O' Sailor" video.
Most Haunted (2005).
The Amazing Race 7 (2005). The starting line for the 7th season.
Airwolf episode "Desperate Monday".
"Development Arrested", series finale of Arrested Development (2006).
The ship was used as the home for the finalists of reality TV show Last Comic Standing in the fourth season (2006).
National Lampoon's Dorm Daze 2 (2006).
The 2007 Cold Case episode World's End.
The Queen Mary was one location the TAPS crew investigated for hauntings during the second season of the TV series Ghost Hunters.
The Queen Mary was the site of Vincent Chase's Birthday in the episode "Less Than 30", of the 3rd Season of Entourage (TV Series).
The Queen Mary is featured on a 2007 Jonas Brothers music video, where they perform their single SOS on the ocean liner.
Portrayed the German liner SS Bremen in the 1983 mini-series The Winds of War based on the 1971 novel by Herman Wouk.
An episode of Quantum Leap took place on the Queen Mary.
The 1997 romantic comedy Out to Sea (with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau) used the Queen Mary as filming location.
The Queen Mary was the set of "The Search for the Next Elvira", where many hopeful young women contended to be the next "Mistress of the Dark".
Miss America: Countdown to the Crown (2009), a reality competition show; part of the precompetition for the Miss America 2009 pagent.
An episode of New York Goes to Work used the Queen Mary as a filming location (2009).
The Othersiders (2009), The team investigated here for paranormal activity.
Legally Blondes (2008).
In popular culture
This "In popular culture" section may contain minor or trivial references. Please reorganize this content to explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances, and remove trivia references. (February 2010)
The album title for Apologies to the Queen Mary by Wolf Parade references an incident on the ship in which the band was involved.
Most of the series finale of Arrested Development takes place on the ship.
The music video of the Jonas Brothers song SOS was filmed aboard the Queen Mary.
A season one episode of Moonlight features the Queen Mary as the location of a murder of a stalked Hollywood star.
The Queen Mary is referenced in episode 7 of the ABC Family series The Middleman, "The Cursed Tuba Contingency". One of the episode's villains has a ship which he boasts is "three feet longer than the Queen Mary, and eighty-six feet longer than the Titanic." In reality, the Queen Mary (at 965 feet perpendiculars) really is eighty-three feet longer than the Titanic (at 882 feet).
In the book The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane, the Queen Mary plays a major part as the start of Edward's Journey. Edward, a china rabbit, is on the Queen Mary with his owner, a little girl named Abileine. Two boys accidentily throw Edward overboard, and the rabbit starts out on his journey. The Queen Mary is referenced in the text and in a painting in the book.
In Tim Powers's book Expiration Date, the Queen Mary plays a significant part, related to the supernatural legends above.
See also
"It's Men that Count"; late 1930s promotional poster for the Cunard Line
RMS Mauretania (1938)
RMS Queen Elizabeth
RMS Queen Elizabeth 2
MS Queen Elizabeth
RMS Queen Mary 2
MS Queen Victoria
References
Notes
^ Royal Lady - The Queen Mary Reigns in Long Beach
^ The Bromsgrove Guild - an illustrated history, The Bromsgrove Society
^ a b c Maxtone-Graham, John. The Only Way to Cross. New York: Collier Books, 1972, p. 288
^ "Chains brake liner at launching". Popular Science. 1934-12. http://books.google.com/books?id=uigDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Retrieved 2009-11-02.
^ Atlantic Liners: RMS Queen Mary
^ ocean-liners.com SS Normandie
^ Bruce, Jim, Faithful Servant: A Memoir of Brian Cleeve Lulu, 2007, ISBN 978-1-84753-064-6, (pp.50-55)
^ Modern art takes to the waves
^ The Historic Queen Mary - RMS Foundation, Inc.
^ Levi, Ran. "The Wave That Changed Science". The Future of Things. http://thefutureofthings.com/column/1005/the-wave-that-changed-science.html. Retrieved 2009-11-02.
^ Lavery, Brian. Churchill Goes to War: Winston's Wartime Journeys. Naval Institute Press, 2007, p. 213.
^ "The voice of the Queen Mary can be heard ten miles away" (JPG image)
^ W6RO - Associated Radio Amateurs of Long Beach
^ Human Touch Draws Ham Radio Buffs, Gazettes Newspaper
^ The wireless installation on RMS Queen Mary
^ Chisholm, Charlyn Keating. "Haunted Hotel - Queen Mary Hotel in Long Beach, California". About.com. http://hotels.about.com/od/hauntedhotelsatoz/p/hau_queenmary.htm. Retrieved 2008-11-25.
The Cunard White Star Quadruple-screw North Atlantic Liner, Queen Mary. - Bonanza Books, 289 p., 1979. - ISBN 0517279290. Largely a reprint of a special edition of "The Shipbuilder and Marine Engine-builder" from 1936.
Cunard Line, Ltd., John Brown and Company archives.
Clydebank Central Library Clydebank, Scotland.
Roberts, Andrew, Masters and Commanders: How four titans won the war in the West, 1941-1945, Harper Collins e-Books, London
External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: RMS Queen Mary
Website of current commercial operator (Event listings as well as Facts & History section)
Queen Mary Alternative Visions (Describes the construction and conversion of the Queen Mary and advocates its partial restoration)
Time Magazine: The Queen; 11 August 1947
The Great Ocean Liners: RMS Queen Mary
Clydebank Restoration Trust
RMS Queen Mary at Chris' Cunard Page (The Last Great Atlantic Fleet)
RMS Britannia (1840) RMS Persia (1856) SS Abyssinia (1870) SS Servia (1881) RMS Etruria (1884) RMS Umbria (1884) RMS Campania (1892) RMS Lucania (1893) SS Ivernia (1899) RMS Carpathia (1903) RMS Carmania (1905) RMS Caronia (1905) RMS Lusitania (1907) RMS Mauretania (1907) RMS Franconia (1910) RMS Ascania (1911) RMS Albania (1911) RMS Ausonia (1911) RMS Laconia (1912) RMS Alaunia (1913) (1913) RMS Aquitania (1913) SS Orduna (1914) SS Empire Barracuda (1918) RMS Albania (1920) RMS Antonia (1921) RMS Ausonia (1921) RMS Scythia (1921) RMS Andania (1922) RMS Berengaria (1922) RMS Laconia (1922) RMS Lancastria (1922) RMS Majestic (1922) RMS Ascania (1923) RMS Aurania (1924) SS Letitia (1924) RMS Alaunia (1925) RMS Carinthia (1925) SS Laurentic (1927) RMS Britannic (1929) RMS Georgic (1934) RMS Olympic (1934) RMS Queen Mary (1936) RMS Mauretania (1939) SS Pasteur (1939) MV Empire Audacity (1939) RMS Queen Elizabeth (1940) SS Empire Battleaxe (1943) SS Empire Broadsword (1943) SS Valacia (1943) RMS Media (1947) RMS Caronia (1949) RMS Saxonia (1954) RMS Ivernia (1955) RMS Carinthia (1956) RMS Sylvania (1957) RMS Alaunia (1960) RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 (1967) MS Cunard Adventurer (1971) MS Cunard Ambassador (1972) MS Cunard Countess (1975) MS Cunard Princess (1976) MS Sagafjord (1983) MS Caronia (1983) MS Royal Viking Sun (1994)
v d e
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
Keeper of the Register History of the National Register of Historic Places Property types Historic district Contributing property
List of entries
National Park Service National Historic Landmarks National Battlefields National Historic Sites National Historical Parks National Memorials National Monuments
Categories: Art Deco ships | Blue Riband holders | Clyde-built ships | Landmarks in Los Angeles, California | Ocean liners | Museum ships in California | Passenger ships of the United Kingdom | National Register of Historic Places in California | Rogue wave incidents | Ships of Scotland | Ships of the Cunard Line | Ships on the National Register of Historic Places | Steamships | Visitor attractions in Long Beach, California | Troop ships of the United Kingdom | 1934 ships | Museums in Long Beach, California | Haunted attractions | Paranormal placesHidden categories: Articles with trivia sections from February 2010 | All articles with trivia sections About the Author
"Judicial Exposition of the Expression "Acts done under official Capacity" and relevance of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civi
INTRODUCTION OF TOPIC
"Justice delayed is justice denied"
Justice is the foundation and object of any civilized society. The quest for justice has been an ideal which mankind has been aspiring for generations down the line[1]. Justice if not properly rendered in time is same as not having any redress at all.
India derives most of its judicial framework from the British legal system. A set of courts have been established at different levels i.e. the district courts at district level, High courts at state level and Supreme court at the national level. The aim for establishing the court at various levels is firstly to reduce the burden of judiciary and secondly to see to it that there is no miscarriage of justice.
In the 17th century various charters were introduced by the crown in the presidency towns of India. However certain changes were introduced in the 18th century and the presidency towns were brought under one uniform judicial system. At that time the personal laws were governed by the customs that were prevailing in India and the British introduced slight modifications in the personal laws of various religions in India.
There was no uniform code of civil procedure before 1859. Different codes were applicable in different parts of the country. The code that came into existence in 1859 had various defects in it like the said code was not at all applicable to the Supreme courts and the courts in the presidency town hence the code was amended time to time to remove the defects and finally in the year 1908 the code of civil procedure was enacted which was applicable to whole of India.
Thereafter various codified laws were introduced by the British and one such law is the Code Of Civil Procedure (1908). The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was first codified in 1859, after the revolution of 1857, which resulted in the dissolution of the East India Crown and the Government of India was taken over by the British sovereign and this led to a surge in legal and administrative reforms. Before this time, the law in this important branch was almost chaotic. Subsequently, the re-enacted code of 1908 was adopted and has again been amended in 1976[2].
Section 80 of the code of civil procedure states the suits by and against the government. The 27th law commission Report of India once again emphasized that section 80 needs to be deleted from the code of civil procedure. The recommendation for the deletion of section 80 was first made in the 14th Law Commission report of India. The report also clearly mentions the reason why there should be deletion of section 80 from the code of civil procedure.
"The evidences disclose in the large majority of cases of the government or the public officer made no use of the opportunity afforded by the section. In most cases the notice given under section 80 remained unanswered till the expiry of two months provided by the section. It was also clear that in a large number of cases, governments and public officers utilized the section merely to raised technical defenses contending either no notice was given or the notice given was did not comply with the requirements of the sections and this technical defence appears to have been succeeded in a number of cases defeating the just claims of the citizens[3]".
Thereafter the 54th law commission report gave its recommendation that were fully contrary to its earlier recommendations given by the commission in the report pertaining to section 80 was;
In every suit where the party is the government or where the officer has acted in his official capacity it shall be the duty of the court to make all the efforts to assist the party in arriving a settlement.
Also if in any suit it appears to the court that there is a chance of settlement between the parties then the court for the time being will adjourn the matter and make attempts to make such a settlement.
It was basically after the 54th law commission report of India the Code of civil procedure went through various changes to remove the defects from time to time. The amendment act of 1976 which came into effect from 1st February 1977 saw the change in the number of section and also sub section (2) and (3) have been inserted.
Then in the year 1984 the 100th law commission report again was of the view that section 80 of CPC which states that prior notice needs to be given to the government or the officers acting in its official capacity needs to be repealed.
Further the law commissions report no 221 gave few recommendations pertaining to section 80 which on can say was to an extent contrary to the earlier recommendations given by the law commission in its earlier reports.
This report emphasized on the point that there is as such no need to repeal section 80 of the code of civil procedure but what is required is to introduce parallel provision along section 80 of CPC so as to see to it that there is speedy disposal of case. Basically the object behind issuing of notice and the legislative intent behind the enactment of such a section is to give the other side (Government & public official who has acted in its official capacity) the opportunity to reconsider the claim for which the suit would be filed against him. Also to see to it that if it is possible then to solve the issue without any litigation because it would unnecessary waste the time and money of the parties. The object of the above section is to see to it that there is advancement of justice and also see to it that Public welfare is secured by avoiding unnecessary litigations.
The following recommendations were given by the above report:
That as such notice of two months needs to be given but if the matter is urgent then with the prior permission of court one can institute the suit. The commission was of the view that a similar provision need to be introduced were it will be mandatory to give notice to the other party before institution of suit i.e. he must give a copy of plaint through registered post and thereafter he must file an affidavit along with his plaint stating the fact of service of notice along with a copy of plain[4].
Amendment of Section 80 and order 5 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 and also the concerned court rules – In order to shorten delays, it is necessary that provisions parallel to section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be introduced to all kinds of civil suits and cases proposed to be filed by a litigant[5] .
Nature and Scope of the Study
The nature of the study is doctrinal i.e. along with referring the case laws the researcher has referred different sources such as books, journals, reports, articles and net. The scope of my study is confined to implications and interpretations of section 80 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908.
Objectives of the study
To know the judicial view of the expression "Acts purporting to be done under official capacity" under section 80 of the code of civil procedure, 1908.
To know the judicial view on the importance of notice under section 80 of the code of civil procedure,1908.
Hypothesis
That if notice is not given to the opposite party who has acted in his official capacity then the suit is itself defective.
That the expression "acts purporting to be done under official capacity" includes all the acts that the person has done during the course of his regular routine.
That a suit in no case can be instituted against the person who has acted in his official capacity' without prior notice.
Research Methodology
The work undertaken by this researcher is mainly doctrinal and analytical. The researcher has utilized the conventional method of using libraries and sourced information from various Law Journals which have published the Judgments passed by the Supreme Court and High courts.
The study being doctrinal in nature historical methods is adopted because it is not possible to rely on purely experimental methods.
The relevant material has been collected from legal sources like books on Code of Civil Procedure by eminent authors like Avtar Singh, Basu, Mulla, and Justice C.K.Takwani. Material was also researched from print and electronic media
The information thus collected has helped the researcher to critically analyze the topic and reach the core aspects of the study.
CHAPTER -2
Legal Provisions
Legal Provisions
80. Notice[6].
1[(1)] 2[Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suits 3[shall be instituted] against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir)] or against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been 4[delivered to, or left at the office of]-
(a) in the case of a suit against the Central Government, 5[except where it relates to a railway], a Secretary to that Government;
6[7[(b)] in the case of a suit against the Central Government where it relates to railway, the General Manager of that railway];
8[(bb) in the case of a suit against the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir the Chief Secretary to that Government or any other officer authorised by that Government in this behalf;]
(c) in the case of a suit against 9[any other State Government], a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district; 10[***]
11[***]
and, in the case of a public officer, delivered to him or left at this office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.
12[(2) A suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief against the Government (including the Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir) or any public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, may be instituted, with the leave of the Court, without serving any notice as required by sub-section (1); but the Court shall not grant relief in the suit, whether interim or otherwise, except after giving to the Government or public officer, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relief prayed for in the suit:
Provided that the Court shall, if it is satisfied, after hearing the parties, that no urgent or immediate relief need be granted in the suit, return the plaint for presentation to it after complying with the requirements of sub-section (1).
(3) No suit 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 shall be dismissed merely by reason of any error or defect in the notice referred to in sub-section (1), if in such notice-
(a) the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff had been so given as to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice and such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority specified in sub-section (1), and
(b) the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff had been substantially indicated[7].]
The above section delineates the procedure to be followed while bringing the suit against the government. Before filing a suit the plaintiff has to give a two-month notice to the government or the public official against whom the suit would be instituted. The suit cannot be instituted once the time period of two month has passed. The reason being the government or the public official must be given an opportunity to reconsider his decision and if possible to settle the claim without institution of suit. The procedure eliminates wastage of time and money in unnecessary suits which can be settled without litigation.
A notice served under section 80 of the code of civil procedure gives the Government sufficient warning of the case which is going to be instituted against it so the government may settle the claim without litigation[8].
Thus, section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a procedural law through which the court will dispense justice between the parties.
The notice will be held valid only if it fulfills the conditions like including the name, description and residence of the plaintiff, the cause of action and the relief which the plaintiff claims; also, it must convey to its recipient the information through which the other person may consider his claim.
CHAPTER – 3
Judicial Trend
Judicial Trend
In U.R.Agarwal v Bharm Singh And others[9] The question before the honorable Allahabad High Court was whether a suit can be instituted under Section 80 of the code of civil procedure if notice is not given to the public official who has acted in his official capacity.
Here the court was of the view that if no notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code was given, the suit itself would be defective. Hence the honorable court rejected the plaint on the above stated ground.
A similar view was taken by the honorable High court of Andhra Pradesh in Paleti Sivaramakrishnaiah Vs Executive Engineer, N.C. Canals Sathenapalli and Anr[10].
InTaru Rani ChoudharyVs. Cantonment Board, Dinapore and Ors.[11] The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants alleging that she is the absolute owner of the suit house through purchase and as some of the portions of the said house were in a dilapidated condition she had got the repairs done. The Dinapore Municipal Board had served notice on the plaintiff for demolition. At the instance of the plaintiff the Cantonment Board recommended for rectification of the alleged offence on payment of Rs. 50/- as compensation fee. The said resolution of defendant 1 was forwarded to defendant No. 3, the Military Estate Officer for onward transmission; however, defendant No. 5 asked the plaintiff under instruction to submit a registered acknowledgment deed admitting Government's title over the land comprising the suit house. On being refused by the plaintiff the above recommendation of the Board was turned down and another notice for demolition was issued which was challenged as illegal by the plaintiff through the present suit. The petition was refused by the lower appellate court on the ground that it did not fulfill certain conditions of section 80 of the Code Of Civil Procedure.
On appeal the court was of the view that in a suit filed against a public officer, notice is mandatory only if the offence was the act of a public officer in his official capacity. Otherwise no such notice is necessary.
Section 273 of the Cantonments Act provides for a notice before instituting such a suit against the Cantonment Board or its officers; also, the language of the above section is similar to section 80 of CPC. In the present appeals no doubt the plaintiff has alleged illegal threats against her by the officers of the Board in taking steps for demolition of the construction raised by her. The court is of the view that the two sections do not constitute absolute bar and hence, the court cannot reject the whole plaint on the hypothesis that the provisions of Section 80 (2nd part) of the Code and those of Section 273 of the Cantonment Act has constituted absolute bar. The court held that the findings of the lower appellate Court rejecting the whole plaint, as aforesaid are set aside, the appeal is allowed in part and the same is remanded for fresh disposal
In Sivananda Roy vs Janaki Ballav Pathanaik and ors[12] Here the the plaintiff an advocate by profession at Bhuvneshwar booked a suit for his friend at the Guest House of the Orissa State Electricity Board for 28/10/1980.On the said date the plaintiff, his friend and family reached the hotel only to discover that the room had already been allotted to a lady, a friend of the then chief Minister of Orissa. The Plaintiff alleged that he suffered humiliation due to the breach of the contract hence he filed a plaint in the court .One of the contentions of the plaintiff is that J.B.Patnaik who happened to be the chief minister of the state as well as one of the defendants(Defendant no.4) in this case was impleaded in the suit in his individual capacity for which notice under Section 80, C.P.C. is not necessary. "The learned Munsif found that notice under Section 80, C.P.C. should have been sent prior to the institution of the suit or at least the leave of the Court should have been taken as per the provision of Section 80, C.P.C. in absence of which the suit was incompetent as against defendant No. 4. The learned Munsif also found that no cause of action had been disclosed in the plaint against defendant No. 4. The learned Munsif rejected the plaint so far as defendant No. 4 is concerned and directed that the name of defendant No. 4 should be struck off the cause title of the plaint[13]".
The plaint was also rejected for want of notice under Section 80, C.P.C. A notice under Section 80, C.P.C. is a prerequisite for a suit against the Government or against a public officer in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity. Non-compliance of the requirement of Section 80, C.P.C., where it is necessary, may be a ground for rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 1 (d) C.P.C. However, as this is not a case where the plaintiff can be found fault with the rejection of the plaint for non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 80, C.P.C. is not supportable.
Thus this revision stands dismissed on merits as one of the grounds for rejection by the learned Munsif as against defendant No. 4 is sound in law.
In: Vishnu Wasudeo Joshi Vs. T.L.H. Smith Pearse[14] The appellant was an Electrician in the employment of the Rajkumar College, Raipur, where the respondent was the Principal of this College at the material time. The allegation was that the respondent suspended him on one occasion and while taking charge of the College property, the respondent kicked him once or twice in the ribs. This act not only caused mental and physical anguish to him but even lowered him in the estimation of others. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 100 as damages.
The question arose whether the respondent is a public officer under the ambit of section 2(17)of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff had given the notice to the respondent but as per section 80 a plaint can only be filed after completion of the 2 months from the date of notice which was not followed here.
Section 2(17) states that
Public officer' means a person falling under any of the following descriptions, namely
(a) every Judge;
(b) every member of the Indian Civil Service;
(c) every commissioned or gazetted officer in the military or naval forces of His Majesty, including His Majesty's Indian Marine Service, while serving under the Government,
(e) every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement;
(g) every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Government or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf or the Government, or to execute any revenue-process, or to investigate or to report on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the Government; and
(h) every officer in the service or pay of the Government, or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any publics duty.
The court held that the respondent here could be termed as public officer as per section 2(h) because he was on deputation to the Rajkumar College and received his pay from that institution; he did not cease to be in the service of the Crown by reason of his deputation.
The second important question was whether his act was done in his capacity as public officer. Here the court held that an act done by the person within the scope of his official duty for instance kicking the person or a mere gentle touch had nothing to do with his official duty. In the circumstances there was no need for a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure code. Hence the court passed the decree in favor of the appellant.
In State of Bihar v. Raghunandan Singh[15],. The Patna High court held notice under Sec. 80 is not necessary for a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Government from settling the ghat in suit in near future. Raj Kishore Prosad, J., observed that the meaning and the correct interpretation of the words, "in respect of any act purporting to be done", occurring in Section 80 of the Code, is that they cover only a past act and do not include a future act. Section 80, as such comes into play only when the suit begun is in respect of past acts, completed, or begun, but incomplete, but it does not apply to future or threatened acts[16]."
In Trustees Bombay Port's case[17]In this case the question that came before the court was that whether short delivery by a statutory bailee was something done or purporting to have been done under the provisions of that Act The court in did not agree with the contention as the necessary notice required as per the sections 87 of Bombay Port Trust Act was not given before filing of suit. Further the court also explained the expression "Acts purporting to be done under official capacity" and was of the view that that " What is done under purported exercise of statutory functions, even if in excess of or contrary to its provisions, is done pursuant to or under the Act so long as there is a legitimate link between the offending act and the official role"[18]. The above decision was also affirmed in BombayHousing Board's case[19].
Also the full bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Antarim Zila Parishad v. Shanti Devi[20] elaborated the'an act done or purporting to have been done in its or his official capacity" as follows
"If an act comes within the scope of the duties, powers or functions of the authority created by the statute. It may also be an act done under the Act or statute. The words "done under an Act" require more direct connection between the act and the statute than 'done under the official capacity of authority', it must be an act directly required or permitted, expressly or by necessary implication, to be done by the statute. If a statute authorizes the doing of an act it is an act done under the statute, it is also done under the authority of the statute; or in the official capacity of the doer. An act done, though not under an express or implied provision of a statute but in performance of a statutory duty or in exercise of a statutory power or function is done under the authority of the statute. If the statute confers an official status or capacity upon the doer it is done under the official authority or in the official capacity[21]."
Similarly the court in Jalgaon Borough Municipality v. Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Co, Ltd[22]The court in this case gave a distinct difference between the acts done with semblance of authority and a prima facie illegal act held that an act which is prima facie illegal is not within the category of acts done or purported to have been done in pursuance of that Act, and that it is only an act done under a vestige or semblance of authority or with some show of a right that would fall within the category. And that the distinction between ultra vires and illegal acts on the one hand and wrongful acts on the other -- wrongful in the sense that they purport to have been done in pursuance of the Act -- is that they are intended to have been done in pursuance of the Act and are done with a vestige or semblance of authority or sort of a right invested in the party doing those acts[23].
In State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Shri Chander Kant[24] In this case the respondent filed the suit against the state claiming that the order in 1955 in Revenue case declaring Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan of Mangrul-Dastagir to be a public trust be set aside. The plaint was filed under Section 8(1) of the Public Trust Act (M.P. Public Trusts Act 1951) against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Registrar of Public Trust, Amraoti. It is admitted by the parties that no notice under Section 80 of the CPC was given.
The defendents held that no notice as per section 80 of the CPC. The Additional District Judge held a notice under Section 80 of the CPC was necessary and the suit was not maintainable and ordered the dismissal of the suit.
The Supreme court was of the view that these provisions indicate that the Registrar is a Public Officer. The words "act purporting to be done in official capacity" have been construed to apply to non-feasance as well as to misfeasance. The word "act" extends to illegal omissions. Section 80 of the CPC therefore is attracted when any suit is filed against a Public Officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such Public Officer in his official capacity. Hence in the present case the court was of the view that a public officer comes under section 80 of the Code of civil Procedure and hence notice is mandatory.
In Koti Reddy v Subbiah [25]. The court elaborated the expression "Act purporting to be done under official capacity" under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908,The court opined that all acts done under the guise by an officer under the ordinary course of its official duty would be very much included in the above expression.
In State of Madras v Venkata Durga State of Madras v Venkata Durga [26]. The court held that if there are any allegations from the plaintiff pertaining to the "act purporting to be done under official capacity" then notice becomes mandatory as per section 80 of the code of civil procedure1908. Also in one of the cases the honorable J&K High court [27]held that if official act is done even with mala fide intention in the course of his official duty then also it will be termed as official act and section 80 would be very much applicable.
In Chhaganlal v Collector of Kaira[28] The honorable Bombay high court was of the view that the expression "Act purporting to be done under official capacity" under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908,act which is ordinarly done by a person in the normal course of his duty and does not include any act which is outside the ambit of his duty.
In Ram Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Decided on 29.09.2008)[29].
Trial court decided the issue, on the ground that the respondent had not acted in his official capacity in the present case and, therefore, service of notice under Section 80 of the CPC on respondent was not necessary, whereas the High Court reversed the order of the trial Court and held that the respondent had acted in his official capacity and, therefore, non service of the notice on Respondent would invite the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety. The suit which is not in respect of any act done by the respondent , as a public officer, and in which no act of respondent is either challenged or sought to be set aside is not a suit to which Section 80 of the CPC can very well apply. Therefore, respondent had not acted in his official capacity for which service of notice under Section 80 of the CPC was necessary. High Court had fallen in error in reversing the order of the trial Court holding that service of notice on respondent under Section 80 of the CPC was not necessary to be served to maintain the suit A look at the relief's claimed in the plaint would clearly show that only a consequential relief was claimed in the suit to the extent that possession of the suit land should be restored in favor of the appellants by the respondent. Therefore, even in the absence of service of notice on the respondent under Section 80 of the CPC, the suit was maintainable in law[30].
The Honorable supreme court in Bihari Chowdary v State of Bihar [31] was of the view that the intent of the legislature for the enactment of section 80 is to see to it that before institution of suit notice must be instituted so as to make the other party scrutinize his act and if possible to settle the claims outside the court i.e. one should try to avoid unnecessary litigations.
Chapter-4
Conclusion
Suggestion
CONCLUSION
The researcher after completing his project has come to certain conclusions which would indirectly prove the hypothesis presumed by the researcher.
The concept of notice under sec.80 of CPC is to prevent litigation and wastage of money and time of the parties. It was inserted under sec 80 with the object of reducing the burden on the judiciary and if possible solve the matter without drawing each other in litigation.
The first hypothesis presumed by the researcher "that if notice is not given to the opposite party who has acted in his official capacity then the suit is itself defective" is clearly proved. The judiciary in various cases is of the view that there are certain pre-requisites of section 80 which need to be followed and if not followed then the suit cannot be entertained by the court. One such important pre-requisite is notice under sec 80 which if not given within two months from the date of institution of suit to the opposite party then the suit would be dismissed.
The second hypothesis presumed by the researcher "that the expression "acts purporting to be done under official capacity" includes all the acts executed by the person during work. To this the judiciary is of the view that act done under official capacity excludes illegal acts for which he has no authority; also, it includes only past acts and not future acts;
"The court opined that all acts done under the guise by an officer under the ordinary course of its official duty would be very much included in the above expression"[32].Hence the second hypothesis presumed by the researcher to an extent is true..
Finally, the last hypothesis presumed by the researcher "That a suit in no case can be instituted against the person who has acted in his official capacity' without prior notice" is proved as even the judiciary is of the view that notice is a must under sec.80 to prosecute any public official for his act.
CHAPTER -5
1.Bibliography
Books
Journals
Reports
Web References
Case laws
BOOKS
Basu's. Code of Civil Procedure, New Delhi: Ashoka Law house
REPORTS
14th law commission report
27th law commission report
54th law commission report
100th law commission report
221st law commission report
JOURNALS
All India Reporter
WEB REFERENCES
www.manupatra.com
www.commonlii.org
ARTICLES
Sinha S.B. ‘ADR and access to Justice: Issues and Perspectives'
Balakrishna K.G. ‘An overview of Indian Justice Delivery Mechanism'.
CASE LAWS
U.R.Agarwal v Bharm Singh And others (AIR1976All243)
Paleti Sivaramakrishnaiah Vs Executive Engineer, N.C. Canals Sathenapalli and Anr (AIR1978AP389)
Taru Rani Choudhary Vs. Cantonment Board, Dinapore and Ors (AIR1982Pat204)
Sivananda Roy vs Janaki Ballav Pathanaik and ors (AIR1985Ori197)
Vishnu Wasudeo Joshi Vs. T.L.H. Smith Pearse(AIR1949Nag362)
State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Shri Chander Kant(AIR1977SC148)
Koti Reddy v Subbiah(AIR 1918 Mad 62)
State of Madras v Venkata Durga State of Madras v Venkata Durga(AIR 1957 AP 675)
AIR 1968 J&K 98
Chhaganlal v Collector of Kaira((1910) 35 Bom 42)
Ram Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Decided on 29.09.2008)
Bihari Chowdary v State of Bihar((1984) 2 SCC 927)
[1] Sinha S.B. ‘ADR and access to Justice: Issues and Perspectives'
[2] Balakrishna K.G. ‘An overview of Indian Justice Delivery Mechanism'.
[3] 27th law commission report
[4] Government of India, Law commission of India , Report number 221
[5] Government of India, Law commission of India , Report number 221
[6] www.commonlii.org
[7]
[8] Basu's. Code of Civil Procedure, New Delhi: Ashoka Law house
