Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from a writ petition filed by the appellant, a tenant of a shop at Batala, challenging an order of requisition dated March 24, 1964, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur, under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. The appellant had been carrying on business as a commission agent in the shop for ten years. The respondent-company, Batala Engineering Co. Ltd., had initiated ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller and, according to the appellant, procured the requisition order mala fide. The writ petition before the Punjab High Court raised two grounds: mala fides and lack of jurisdiction of the Additional District Magistrate. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Additional District Magistrate was competent by virtue of a notification under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure conferring all powers of a District Magistrate on him. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether an Additional District Magistrate so empowered could be considered a 'District Magistrate' for purposes of a Central Government notification issued under Section 40(1) of the Act delegating its powers under Section 29 to District Magistrates. The appellant contended that the terms are distinct and the Additional District Magistrate could not exercise delegated powers. The respondents argued that the Section 10(2) notification made the Additional District Magistrate a District Magistrate for all purposes. The Court analyzed the nature of the requisitioning power, noting its drastic impact on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f). It emphasized that notifications delegating such powers must be read strictly and that the ordinary meaning of words should be followed. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, the District Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate are separate offices, though the latter may be given some or all powers of the former. The Court distinguished the case from Ajaib Singh and others, finding that the delegation here was to specific named authorities, not to a generic class. It approved the reasoning of the Nagpur High Court in Prabhulal Ramlal Kabra v. Emperor, holding that a notification under Section 10(2) CrPC cannot convert an Additional District Magistrate into a District Magistrate for purposes of a special statute. Consequently, the Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the requisition order. The appeal was allowed, and the order of requisition was quashed.
Headnote
A) Delegation of Power - Interpretation of 'District Magistrate' in Notification - Additional District Magistrate Not Included - Defence of India Act, 1962, Sections 29, 40; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 10(2) - The Central Government delegated its power under Section 29 to District Magistrates via notification under Section 40(1). The Additional District Magistrate, though given all powers of District Magistrate under Section 10(2) CrPC, is not the same as 'District Magistrate'. Held that such powers must be strictly construed, and the Additional District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to requisition. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional District Magistrate who had been invested with all the powers of the District Magistrate under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure could make an order under Section 29(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1962, requisitioning a property.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the order of requisition was quashed as the Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass it under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Notification must be read literally
- District Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate are distinct authorities
- powers infringing fundamental rights must be strictly construed
- delegation under Section 40 of Defence of India Act cannot be extended by Section 10(2) CrPC notification
