1968 (9) TMI 117 - SC - Indian Laws

ADM lacks authority to issue requisitioning order under Defence of India Act, 1962. Court quashes order.

HARI CHAND AGGARWAL Versus BATALA ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

The Supreme Court held that the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) was not competent to issue a requisitioning order under Section 29(1) of the Defence ... - Issues Involved:1. Competence of Additional District Magistrate to issue a requisitioning order under Section 29(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1962.2. Allegation of mala fides in the issuance of the requisitioning order.3. Validity of the Central Government's notification under Section 40(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1962.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Competence of Additional District Magistrate to issue a requisitioning order under Section 29(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1962:The primary issue was whether the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), who had been invested with all the powers of the District Magistrate (DM) 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. The High Court had held that the ADM was competent to issue the requisitioning order because he had been empowered to exercise the powers of a DM. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the ADM, even when invested with the powers of a DM, does not attain the status of a DM. The Court emphasized that the expressions or words used in the notification must be read as such, and the term 'District Magistrate' could not be interpreted to include the ADM. The Court referred to the Nagpur High Court's decision in Prabhulal Ramlal Kabra v. Emperor, which held that an ADM could not exercise powers under Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules simply by virtue of the notification under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court concluded that the ADM was not competent to issue the requisitioning order under Section 29 of the Act.2. Allegation of mala fides in the issuance of the requisitioning order:The appellant alleged that the requisitioning order was made mala fide, as the respondent company had filed an application for his ejectment before the Rent Controller but resorted to getting the shop requisitioned when it realized the weakness of its case. The High Court held that the allegation of mala fides had not been proved. The Supreme Court did not delve into this issue in detail, as the decision on the competence of the ADM to issue the requisitioning order was sufficient to dispose of the appeal.3. Validity of the Central Government's notification under Section 40(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1962:The appellant challenged the validity of the notification issued under Section 40(1) of the Defence of India Act, which empowered the DM to exercise powers under Section 29 of the Act. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Defence of India Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court noted that the Central Government, while making the delegation of its power under Section 29 of the Act, must be presumed to be fully conscious of the drastic nature of the powers involved, which affect fundamental rights in respect of property. The Court emphasized that the delegation was intended for officers of a high status, such as the DM, and not for the ADM. The Court concluded that the notification could not be interpreted to include the ADM as one of the authorities empowered to exercise the powers of the DM under Section 29 of the Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the requisitioning order, and held that the ADM was not competent to issue the requisitioning order under Section 29(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1962. The Court emphasized that the expressions used in the notification must be read as such, and the term 'District Magistrate' could not be interpreted to include the ADM. The appeal was allowed with costs, and the writ petition filed in the High Court succeeded.