1. Externment order passed by Additional District Magistrate under Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 — Challenge to jurisdiction of authority lower than District Magistrate. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 85
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DHARMENDRA RATHORE – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 171 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10681/2015)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RAMU @ BRAJMOHAN JADON – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 172 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10671/2015)
Decided on : 29-01-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
When powers are conferred upon or delegated to certain officers as per the statute, there will be no error in these officers exercising such powers.
When powers are conferred upon or delegated to certain officers as per the statute, there will be no error in these officers exercising such powers.
Subject
Administrative Law - Delegation of Authority
Act Referred
MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SURAKSHA ADHINIYAM ACT: S.6, S.13, S.18, S.3, S.4, S.5
Headnote
Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 – Section 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 and 18 – District Magistrate to exercise powers u/s 3, 4, 5 and 6 – However section 13 empowers State Government to designate and notify officers other than District Magistrate to exercise these powers – Section 18 similarly provides for delegation of these powers – Instantly, State Government notifying Additional District Magistrates to exercise the above powers of District Magistrate – Additional District Magistrate issuing the instant externment order – No infirmity. (Para 14)
Writ Petition No. 8555/2012; Writ Appeal No. 244 of 2013 – Referred
AIR 1965 SC 1619 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior passed an order externing the respondent for a period of one year from the district concerned. An appeal was filed by the respondent before the Commissioner which too was dismissed. A writ Petition was filed by the respondent challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate as well as of the Commissioner. The High Court allowed the writ petition. Writ Appeal has been dismissed by Division Bench.
Finding of the Court:
High court erred in relying upon AIR 1965 SC 1619.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the State : Mr. Varun Chopra, AAG Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. B.N. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Mukesh, Adv. Mr. G. Pal Singh, Adv. Ms. Indra Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Shantnu Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Nidhi, AOR,
For the State : Mr. Varun Chopra, AAG Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. B.N. Dubey, Adv. Mr. Mukesh, Adv. Mr. G. Pal Singh, Adv. Ms. Indra Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Shantnu Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Nidhi, AOR,
Table of Contents
2. Whether the power to pass externment orders is exclusively vested in the District Magistrate or can be delegated to an Additional District Magistrate. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The statutory scheme of the Adhiniyam, 1990, allows delegation of District Magistrate's powers to Additional District Magistrates or Sub-Divisional Magistrates via Section 18. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. An Additional District Magistrate is competent to pass orders under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990, if empowered by the State Government. (Para 14 )
5. Appeals allowed and High Court judgments set aside. (Para 16 )
6. Can an Additional District Magistrate pass an externment order under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990?
Yes, the statutory scheme allows the State Government, under Section 18, to direct that powers conferred on a District Magistrate be exercised by an Additional District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. (Para 9 , 14 )
7. Does the ruling in Ajaib Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh apply to the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990?
No, because the Defence of India Act in Ajaib Singh specifically prohibited authorities lower in rank than a District Magistrate, whereas the Adhiniyam, 1990 contains no such prohibition and explicitly permits delegation. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 )
8. What is the effect of Section 13 of the Adhiniyam, 1990 regarding the State Government's power of externment?
Section 13 empowers the State Government or a specially empowered officer to exercise the powers of a District Magistrate under Sections 3, 4, 5, or 6 to direct externment. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. These two appeals raising similar question of law has been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. State of Madhya Pradesh has filed the appeal questioning the judgment of Division Bench of the High Court dated 30.10.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No. 244 of 2013 and judgment of Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 71 of 2014 dated 20.06.2014 following the earlier judgment dated 30.10.2013.
3. For deciding the appeals, it shall be sufficient to refer to the facts in Civil (criminal?) Appeal - The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Dharmendra Rathore. The Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior has passed an order dated 26.02.2013 externing the respondent for a period of one year from the district concerned. An appeal was filed by the respondent against the order of the Additional District Magistrate before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, which too was dismissed on 17.06.2013. A writ Petition No. 4818 of 2013 was filed by the respondent challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate as well as of the Commissioner, Gwalior Division. The main ground taken by the respondent before the High Court was that the Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “Adhiniyam, 1990”). The order can be passed only by District Magistrate. Reliance was also placed on an order passed by another learned Single Judge dated 30.05.2013 in Writ Petition No. 8555/2012 - Arvind Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. The High Court relying on judgment of Arvind Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. allowed the writ petition holding that Additional District Magistrate was incompetent to pass the order under the Adhiniyam, 1990. Writ Appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court by the State of Madhya Pradesh being Writ Appeal No. 71 of 2014. By judgment and order dated 20.06.2014, the writ appeal has been dismissed by Division Bench relying on its judgment in Writ Appeal No. 244 of 2013 dated 30.10.2013 - State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Arvind Sharma, in which judgment, the High Court after considering the provisions of Sections 3 , 13 and 29 of the Adhiniyam, 1990 and relying on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh, AIR 1965 SC 1619 held that the order could not have been passed by any authority lower than the rank of District Magistrate. State aggrieved by the order has come up in this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal contends that High Court committed error in relying on the Constitution Bench Judgment of this Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. Gurbachan Singh (supra). He submits that in the case of Ajaib Singh (supra), this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Defence of India Act, 1962 and Defence of India Rules, which contained a different statutory scheme. The Statutory Scheme in the Adhiniyam, 1990 being different, the said judgment was not applicable. It is submitted that Additional District Magistrate was fully competent to pass the order under the Adhiniyam, 1990.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent supporting the order of the High Court contends that when Sections 3 , 4, 5 and 6 empowers the District Magistrate to pass the order, an authority lower in rank could not have been passed the order. It is further submitted that the State Government, in exercise of power under Section 13 , can also not delegate its power to any authority lower in rank to the District Magistrate. It is further submitted that there were other grounds to challenge the order of Additional District Magistrate in the writ petition but High Court having considered only one ground, other grounds were not considered.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
7. It is necessary to notice the statutory scheme under the Adhiniyam, 1990. Secti
