HARi CHAND AGGARWAL v. BATALA ENGINEERING CO. LTD

The appellant claims to have been carrying on the business of a Commission Agent in machines in the said shop at Batala for the last 10 years as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 20. According to the allega tions made by the appellant herein in the petition whfch he filed in the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 1 herein) had filed an application for his ejectment in January 1964 before the Rent Controller, Batala but realising the weakness of its case the said respondent resorted to the device of getting the shop re quisitioned at the instance of the Labour Commissioner who wrote to the Additional District Magistrate that the shop was re quired for setting up a Cooperative Consumer Store. On March 24, 1964, the Additional District Magistrate (respondent No. 2 herein) issued a requisitioning order purporting to be under s. 29 of the Act requisitioning the shop in question and directing the tenant to surrender and deliver possession Manager, Cooperative Consumer Store, Batala, within two days of the service of the order. The requisitioning order was chal lenged by means of a writ petition on two grounds; the first was that it had been made mala fide and the second was that the noti fication which had been issued under s. 40 (1) of the Act by the the District Central Government empowering among others Magistrate to exercise powers which were exercisable by the Cent ral Government under s. 29 in addition to other sections (which it is unnecessary to mention) was illegal and invalid. The peti tion was resisted by respondents 1 and 2 and the assertions and contentions of the appellant were controverted. thereof B c D F G H • .. ~··· HAR! CHAND v. BATALA ENG. co. (Grover, J.) 203 A B The Division Bench of the High Court (the writ petition had been referred by a learned Single Judge to a Division Bench) It held that the allegation of ma/a fides had not been proved. further held that the Additional District Magistrate was compe tent to make the requisitioning order since he had been empowered to exercise the p<Jwers of a District Magistrate under s. 10(2) of the Cr. P. Code. The writ petition was consequently dismissed. It is necessary first to notice certain provisions of the Act. Section 29 empowers the Central Government or the State Gov ernment to requisition any inrmoveable property in the circum stances mentioned in the section by an order in writing. Section 40 which provides for the power to delegate may be set out in C · entirety : · f) E F • G • ' _, , "S. 40(1) The Central Government may, by order, direct that any power or duty which by this Act or by any rule made under this Act is conferred or imposed upon the Central Government shall, in such circum- stances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercised or discharged also- (a) by any officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government, or (b) whether or not the JJQwer or duty relates to a matter with respect to which a State Legislature has power to make laws, by any State Govern ment or by any officer or authority subordi nate to such Government, or ( c) by any other authority. (2) The State Government may, by order, direct that any power or duty which by this Act or by any rule made under this Act is conferred or imposed on the State Government or which, being by this Act or any such rule conferred or imp<Jsed on the Central Govern ment, has been directed under sub-section ( 1) to be exercised or discharged by the State Government, shall, in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any as may be specified in the direction, be exercised or dis charged by any officer. or authority not being (except in the case of a Union territory) an officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government." H On December 13, 1962 the Central Government promulgated a notification delegating its power under certain sections of the Act including s. 29. This notification need not be set out extenso. Its material part is as follows : - 204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 S.C.R "G.S.R. 1716-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1) of s. 40 of the Defence of India Act 1962 (5 of 1962) and of all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Central Government hereby directs that the powers exercisable by it under the provisions of the said Act specified in column (2) of the Schedule hereto annexed shall also be exercisable by each of the authorities mentioned in the corresponding entry column (3) of the said schedule in respect of any im movable property situated within its jurisdiction. Schedule c: S. No. Provisions of the Act 1 2 Authorities. 3

#1. Sections 29, 30 (except the provise thereto), 31, 32, 33, 35, and 36 and sub-ss. (1) and (3) of s. 37. (a) All Collectors, District Magis trates and Deputy Commissioners D· in the States and all political officers in Nefa. In Part II which is headed It is necessary now to turn to the relevant provisions of the Cri minal Procedure Code in order to determine whether the Addi· tional District Magistrate would be one of the authorities men- E tioned in column 3. 'Co'nstitution and Powers of Criminal Courts and Offices', s. 6 gives the classes of criminal courts and s. 7 deals with Sessions, divisi~ and districts. Section 9 provides for establishment of court of Ses sion. Section 10 lays down that in every district outside presidency towns the State Government shall appoint a Magistrate of the first class who shall be called the District Magistrate. is further provided that the State Government may appoint any Magistrate of the first class to be an Additional District Magis trate and such Additional District Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code or under any other law for the time being in force as the State Gov ernment may direct. Punjab after the separation of judiciary from the executive by the Punjab Separation of Judicial & Executive Functions Act, 1964 (Act XXV of 1964) certain amendments were made in s. 10 but in the present case we are not concerned with because the impugned order requisitioning the shop in question was made before the said Act (XXV of 1964) came into force. It may be mentioned that in the State of G It J.t H It is well known that the object of appointing an Additional District Magistrate is to relieve the District Magistrate of some \-,... \ - • ' ·~- • -! ' • - i • ' HAR! CHAND v. BATALA ENG. co. (Grover, J.) 205 A B of his duties and that he is subordinate to the District Magistrate It is equally well to the extent specified in sub-s. (3) of s. 10. known that the District Magistrate occupies a very important position in the district and is the head of the Executive there and he exercises powers of superintendence and control over other Magistrates in the district. Apart from the powers which have been conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure on him the District Magistrate is also known as the Collector for pur poses of revenue laws. He is variously called Collector in some States and Deputy Commissioner in other States. Under s. 11 of the Code whenever in consequence of the office of District Magistrate becoming vacant, any officer succeeding temporarily to the Chief executive administration of the district such officer < also exercises all the powers and performs all the duties conferred and imposed by the Code on the District Magistrate. The Addi tional District Magistrate as has previously been noticed, can similarly exercise all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate if the State Govermnent makes a direction under s. 10(2) of the Code but even an officer who heads the chief executive administra- powers of a District Magistrate. The scheme of s. 10 of the Code leaves no room for doubt that the District Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate are two different and distinct authorities and even though the latter may be empowered under sub-s. (2) to exercise all or any of the powers of a District reasoning can an Additional Magistrate but by no stretch of ~ District Magistrate be called the District Magistrate which are :n tion of the district temporarily under s. 11, exercises all the words employed in sub-s. (1) of s. 10. The argument which prevailed in the High Court and which the appellant has had to seriously meet in this Court, is that the p Additional District Magistrate when invested by the State Gov errmrent under s. 10(2) of the Code with all or any of the powers of the District Magistrate under the Code or under any other law for the time being in force, would squarely fall within expression "District Magistrate" employed in column 3 of the notification dated December 13, 1962 by means of which the Central Goverrmrent delegated its power under certain sections 'G of the Act including s. 29. The reasoning of the High Court was that on a proper construction of the notification it was clear that the "Central Goverrmrent was desirous of delegating its power in favour of the officers in fact and actually discharging duties and functions in exercising the powers of Collectors, District Magistrates and Deputy Commissioners. The High Court also 1I looked at the other provisions in respect of which the powers had been delegated and drew the conclusion that the delegation was not confined only to officers appointed as such under s. 10 (1 ) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the appel- 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 S.C.R. lant has assailed the decision of the High Court principally on two grounds; for which he has sought support from a decision of the Nagpur High Court in Prabhulal Ram/al Kabra v. Emperor('). In that case an order had be.en made under Rule 26 of Defence of India Rules by the Additional District Magistrate of Raipur directing the detention of one Bharatchandra Kabra. That Rule conferred power of detention on the Central Government and the Provincial Government but by virtue of the provisions relating to delegation the District Magistrate had been empowered by the Provincial Government to exercise those powers. The Additional District ·Magistrate who made the order of detention had been conferred powers under s. 10(2) Cr. Pr. Code almost in similar terms as are to be found in the present case. In other words he could exercise all the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code or under any other law for the time being in force. Two points were agitated before the Nagpur court; the first was that the word "law" in "any other law" occurring s. 10(2) of the Code was not meant to include an executive order but only legislative enactments, and rules, regulations or orders which had the force of law. The second was that the Act ancl the Rules made thereunder were special laws enacted to meet an emergency and they conferred extraordinary and drastic powers on the executive and it was precisely for that reason that it was imperative that those powers must be exercised· with due sense of responsibility and with circumspection by an officer or authority of a certain status and experience and, therefore, power had been delegated to the District Magistrate. Both these contentions prevailed with the Nagpur High Court and it was held that the Additional District Magistrate could not exercise powers under Rule 26 of the Defence of India Rules simply by virtue of the notification under s. 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is an exhaustive discussion on the first point in the Nagpur judgment but it is altogether unnecessary to examine its correctness because we are of the opinion most of the reasons given in support of the determination of the second point are clear and cogent and must be accepted as correct. These reasons may be summarised as follows (i) very wide, almost autocratic, powers are conferred on the Govern ment in the matter of detention and therefore they must be exer cised with a due sense of responsibility and circumspection by an officer of a certain status and experience; (ii) when the Gov ernment delegates its power to an officer or authority subordinate to it, is not unreasonable to assume that it fully considers the fit ness of the delegate before making the order in respect of dele gation; (iii) the Additional District Magistrate who is invested with the powers of a District Magistrate does not thereby attain the status of a District Magistrate as there can be only one person (1) A. 1. R. 1944 N•g. 84. A B c D E F G H • • , -. t , HAR! CHAND v. BATALA ENG. co. (Grover, I.) 207 A in the district who can be a District Magistrate and Government when it conferred the power on the District Magis trate conferred it on the officer actually holding the office of the District Magistrate and no one else. (iv) B c D E F G H It has not been disputed that the powers of requisitioning are of a very drastic nature and involve the fundamental rights in res pect of property guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(f) of the Consti· tution. The Central Government while making the delegation of its power under s. 29 of the Act must ordinarily be presumed to be fully conscious of this aspect of the matter and it was for that reason that an officer or authority of the high status of a District Magistrate in the district was empowered to exercise that power. Apart from these considerations we see no reason to deviate from the normal rule that the expressions or words which have been used in the notification must be read as such and not in any other manner unless the context requires that the latter course should be followed. the words "District In the present case Magistrate" could not possibly be read as Additional District Magistrate and it is only by resorting to the notification issued under s. 10(2) of the Code that the Additional District Magis trate can be said to have empowered to exercise the powers of the District Magistrates. The reasons which prevailed with the Nagpur court and which have already been summarised ade the Additional District quately meet the contrary view Magistrate should be held to be competent to act under s. 29 of the Act even though the Nagpur case was one of detention. Coming to the decisions of this Court not much assistance can ) the be derived .from them. In Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab (1 Additional District Magistrate of Amritsar who had be.en invest ed with the powers of a District Magistrate under s. 10(2) of the Code was incharge of the office of the District Magistrate when the latter was transferred. He passed an order detaining a person under Rule 30(1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules 1962. It was held that the Act and the Rules showed unmistak ably that the powers of detention could be exercised only by the State Government or by an officer or authority to whom it might be delegated but who shall, in no case, be lower in rank than a District Magistrate. The Additional District Magistrate was be low the rank of a District Magistrate and even though he had been invested with all the powers under the Code and also under any other law for the time being in force he was still not District Magistrate unless the Government appointed him as such under s. 10(1). This case would have been most apposite for the present case but for the clear distinction that iri provisions (1) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 845. 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 S.C.R. under which the detention was made it was provided that powers could be delegated to no one who was lower in rank than a District Magistrate. There is no such provision in the matter of delegation in the present case. One rule, however, emerges quite clearly which is even. otherwise unexceptionable that unless a person has been appointed under s. 10 (1) of the Code he can- not be called a District Magistrate and that an Additional Dis- trict Magistrate is below the rank of a District Magistrate. the A for the file a suit landlord applied for ejectmeuit against The Central Talkies Ltd. Kanpur v. Dwarka Prasad(') on which reliance was placed by the counsel respondents related to interpretation of certain provisions of the U.P. (Tempo rary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act 194 7. Section 3 of that Act enabled a landlord to file a suit for eviction of the tenant with the permission of the District Magistrate. Section 2(d) defined District Magistrate as including an officer authorised by the District Magistrate to perform any of his functions under the Act. By a notification issued under s. 10 ( 2) of the Code of Cri minal Procedure one Mr. Seth was appointed as an Additional District Magistrate with aU the powers of the District Magistrate. the District Magistrate for per The mission tenant. The District Magistrate transferred that application to the Addi tional District Magistrate who granted permission. The tenant chal lenged the same on the ground that the permission granted by the Adclitional District Magistrate was invalid as the District Magis trate mentioned in s. 3 of ·aforesaid Act was persona designata. This contention was repelled by this Court and it was observed that a persona designata was a person selected as an individual in his private capacity, and not in his capacity as filling a particular character or office. This case is clearly distinguish able on the ground that under s. 3 of the U.P. Act the District Magistrate himself could authorise any officer to perform any of intend his functions. That showed that the legislature did not that the functions to be performed under s. 3 must be performed by the District Magistrate alone and by no one else. Counsel for the appellant has called attention to a Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Guru Datt v. Sohan Singh & Another(') in which a question arose whether the Deputy Commissioner for the purposes of an election petition under the Punjab Pan chayat Samities and Zila Parishads Act 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder was a persona designata and it was held that it was the Deputy Commissioner alone who could perform the func tions which the statute and the rules conferred on him even though the Governor had made an order declaring the ex-cadre 11osts of Additional Deputy Commissioners to be equivalent in (!) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 495. (2)1.L.R.1965Punj.134. B c D E F G H r • HAR! CHAND v. BATALA ENG. co. (Grover, I.) 209 I -1 ' • ~ A iB status to the cadre posts of Deputy Commissioners. This deci sion may be open to some criticism owing to the observations made in Central Talkies' case( I). However, in the present case we are not basing . our decision by taking into consideration the line of argument of persona designata. For the reasons which have already been stated the appeal i> allowed with costs, with the result that the writ petition filed in the High Court succeeds and the impugned order shall quashed. G.C. Appeal allowed . • • (l) [1961! 3 S.C.R. 495.