Strict construction of delegated requisitioning power: Additional District Magistrate lacked authority, while mala fides was not established.

A delegation authorising requisition under the Defence of India Act to a District Magistrate was construed strictly: an Additional District Magistrate, although invested with powers of a District Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code, was not treated as the office-holder named in the delegation and therefore lacked competence to make the requisitioning order. The Court also found the allegation of mala fides unproved on the material before it. Because the order was made by an lacking authority under the delegation, the requisition could not stand and the impugned order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Additional District Magistrate, though invested with the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, was competent to exercise the power of requisition under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 under the Central Government's delegation in favour of a District Magistrate. (ii) Whether the requisitioning order was vitiated by mala fides.

Issue (i): Whether the Additional District Magistrate, though invested with the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, was competent to exercise the power of requisition under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 under the Central Government's delegation in favour of a District Magistrate.

Analysis: The delegation notification authorised the power under Section 29 to be exercised by specified authorities, including District Magistrates. The Code of Criminal Procedure treated the office of District Magistrate and the office of Additional District Magistrate as distinct, and a person appointed only as an Additional District Magistrate did not become a District Magistrate merely because he was invested with the powers of one under Section 10(2). The expression used in the delegation had to be given its ordinary meaning, and the context did not justify reading District Magistrate as including Additional District Magistrate. The drastic nature of requisitioning power also supported a strict construction of the delegation.

Conclusion: The Additional District Magistrate was not competent to make the requisitioning order under Section 29.

Issue (ii): Whether the requisitioning order was vitiated by mala fides.

Analysis: The allegation of mala fides was examined on the facts and was not established on the material before the Court.

Conclusion: The plea of mala fides failed.

Final Conclusion: The requisitioning order could not stand because the authority who made it lacked competence under the validly construed delegation, and the writ petition was therefore allowed with the impugned order quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegate described by office designation must answer that description in law, and an officer who is only invested with the powers of that office under another statute cannot be treated as the office-holder for the purpose of a separate statutory delegation unless the text or context clearly so provides.

---