Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the consent for prosecution under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, granted by the Additional District Magistrate pursuant to a State notification, was valid when the Central Government had delegated the power only to the District Magistrate.
Analysis: The power to accord consent for prosecution under Section 7 vested in the Central Government. That power had been delegated by the Central Government to the District Magistrate by notification. The State Government could not further delegate the same Central Government power to an Additional District Magistrate merely by clothing him with the powers of a District Magistrate under another notification. The earlier decision in Hari Chand Aggarwal supported the principle that an Additional District Magistrate cannot exercise a power specifically delegated by the Central Government to a District Magistrate unless the delegation itself authorises such further delegation.
Conclusion: The consent granted by the Additional District Magistrate was invalid, and the quashing of the prosecution was not justified.
Ratio Decidendi: A power delegated by the Central Government to a District Magistrate cannot be further sub-delegated by the State Government to an Additional District Magistrate unless the original delegation expressly permits such sub-delegation.