( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises a question of considerable constitutional importance, viz, whether the "handmaid" of law and order could be an adjudicator as well? If it is answered in favour of the executive, it portends to sow poisonous seeds to rock off the edifice of the rule of law to its bottom chilling the public confidence in its efficacy. An attempt in futility has been made to impede this court to angulate into that question by putting forth locus standi as its blockade. But suffice it to need hardly remind mr. S K. Vyas, the second respondent-Superintendent of Police Urban Police district, Vijayawada, the deponent of the counter affidavit that it is too late in the day that since the "steadfast adherence of standing" hitherto held its fortress has been swept off its shore root and branch by the activist and pragmatic fidal waves, blown from the prevailing oceanic conditions of the Indian society, by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in particular, Bhagwatt, J (as he then was) leaving only a solid small island, viz, judicial discretion to the Court to consider each case in the light of its facts as an exception.

( 2 ) FOR elaboration thereof, it is necessary to set out few material facts. The petitioner is a resident of Vijaya- wada. The first respondent, in exercise of the power under, Section 21 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short "the Code", appointed the deponant as "special Executive magistrate" for the Vijayawada Urban police District conferring on him to exercise the powers under Sections 107, 108,110,133, 143, 144 and 145 of the code. The petitioner is assailing the jurisdiction of the first respondent in the conferment of the said powers on the second respondent by seeking a declaration that the exercise thereof is unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide and issuance of a writ of mandamus to restrain the second respondent from exercising those powers. The respondents have taken the stand that Section 21 of the Code empowers the Governor to confer powers on the Special Executive magistrate. The powers under the aforesaid sections are not judicial in nature. It is intra vires of the constitutional scheme. The independence of judiciary is not eroded. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition as he is neither an aggrieved person nor his legal rights have been infringed.

( 3 ) THE contention of Mr. Jagannadharao, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the power to be exercised under the aforesaid sections is a judicial power. Article 50 of the constitution demands separation of the judicial power from the executive. The conferment of power on the second respondent is in transgression of Article 50. He relied upon Harish Chandra v. Trilok Singh (1) A I R 1957 SC 444. and Qurabali v Govt. of Rajasthan (2) a I R 1960 Rajasthan 152 and a passage from Basu s Silver Jubilee Edition on the constitution of India, at page 129. He also further stated that in construing the provisions of Section 21 of the Code, the Court has to keep in view the directive principles under Article 50 and in support thereof, he relied on U. P S E board v Hari Shanker (3) AIR 1979 s C 65. He further contended that the order is vitiated by malafides by the chief Minister for the reasons set out in the affidavit.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional advocate-General has contended that section 20 (5) and Section 21 of the code empower the Government to appoint any person "as Executive Magistrate or Special Executive Magistrate. The powers exercisable by them are not judicial. They are in the nature of administrate actions to prevent recurrence of law and order problem. The Superintendent of Police having jurisdiction, is the best person to know who are the persons prone to disturb public peace and law and order. He is the better person to deal with the same effectively. There is no prohibition under the Code in the conferment of the power on the second respondent. Vijayawada Urban police District