Back
High Court Of Delhi
ZALAM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 12/20/1968
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 77 - AUTHENTICATION OF ORDERS AND INSTRUMENTS - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 35 - APPOINTMENT OF CONTROLLERS AND ADDITIONAL CONTROLLERS - VALIDITY OF APPOINTMENT - SUFFICIENCY OF AUTHENTICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of eviction orders passed against them by a Rent Controller, Shri Asa Singh Gill, on the ground that he was not validly appointed under section 35 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned notification appointing Shri Asa Singh Gill as a Controller was duly authenticated and was covered by sub-clause (2) of Article 77 of the Constitution. The court found that the notification was an official publication in the Gazette Extraordinary Part IV published by authority and was signed by Shri S. C. Vajpeyi with the designation of "under Secretary" added to it. The court held that this was sufficient authentication and that there was no requirement for a specific formula of words or a magic inceptation to satisfy the authentication requirement.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned notification appointing Shri Asa Singh Gill as a Controller was duly authenticated? 2. Whether the appointment of Shri Asa Singh Gill was made by the Central Government in compliance with section 35 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of Article 77 are directory and not mandatory, and that authentication according to Webster's New International Dictionary means to render authentic, to give authority to, by the proof, attestation or formalities required by law or sufficient to article to credit. 2. The court held that the impugned notification was an official publication in the Gazette Extraordinary Part IV published by authority and was signed by Shri S. C. Vajpeyi with the designation of "under Secretary" added to it. The court found that this was sufficient authentication and that there was no requirement for a specific formula of words or a magic inceptation to satisfy the authentication requirement. 3. The court also held that there was no evidence on record to show that Shri Vajpeyi, Under Secretary, could make any appointment like the one mentioned in the notification in exercise of his own rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and held that the impugned notification appointing Shri Asa Singh Gill as a Controller was valid and that the eviction orders passed by him were legally valid and enforceable.
( 1 ) THE in petitioners in this case were tenants of the respondent in occupation of premises bearing No. 8583-86/xv. situated at Ara Kashan Road, Paharganj, Delhi. On an appliation made before the Rent Controller by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, Shri Wasakha Singh, who died during the pendency of this litigation and Whose legal representatives were thereafter brought on the record as respondents, Shri Asa Singh Gill, Rent Controller, Delhi, passed orders of eviction in favour of the landlord against the petitioners. the. petitioners have assailed [he validity of these orders by this petition and the. only ground urged in. support of the contention that the impugned orders of Shri Asa Singh. Gill are illegal, null and void and wihout the authority of law is that he had not been validly appointed under section 35 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, to act as a Rent Controller. The matter came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. The authentication of the notification appointing Shri Asa Singh Gill was not expressed to be in the name of the President. It was signed by Shri Vajpeyi with the designation of Under Secretary appended to it at the end. Respondents maintained that this was sufficient authentication and the presumption of Article 77 of the Constitution was attracted to the notification. Having regard to the importance of the question and its wide application in the day-to-day conduct of the administration and the issuance of the orders and notifications by the authorities it was considered proper to refer the matter to a larger Bench. and this is how this case is now before us for decision.
( 2 ) SECTION 35 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ) provides tor the appointment of Controllers and Additional Controllers and lays down that the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint as many Controllers as it thinks fit and define the local limits within which each Controller shall exercise the powers conferred by the Act and perform the duties imposed by it. In. exercise of these powers, the Central Government by notificaion dated June 26, 1962, published in the Government of India, Delhi Gazette. Delhi Administration, appointed Shri Asa Sinh Gill as Controller with effect from the date he assumed charge of the office. The notification reads as under :
"registered No. D. 436 Government of India Delhi (Seal) Gazette. Delhi Administration. Extraordinary Part IV Published by authority. No. 28. Delhi, Tuesday, June 16, 1962/asadha 5. 182. 4 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NOTIFICATIONS New Delhi, the 21st June, 1962 No. 2012,62-Delhid): In parsuance of sub-section (2) of section 35 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958), the Central Government hereby appoints : (1) Shri Pritpal Singh at present working as Controller as 1st Additional Controller vice Shri Sudershan Aggarwal with 913 from the date he hands over the charge of the post of Controller to Shri Asa Singh; (2) Shri Sudershan Aggarwal, the. present Additional Controller as 2n d Additional Controller. No. F. 20i 12. 162. Delhi 9 (1 ). In pursunce of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (59 of 1958), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Asa Singh as Controller vice Shri Pritpal Singh with effect from the date he assumes charge of the office and defines. all the areas to which the said Act extends as the local limits within which and all the hotels and lodging homes to which the provisions of Chapter V of the said Act apply : as the hotels and lodging houses in. respect of which the said Controller shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed. on Controllers by or under the said Act. sd/- S. C. VAJPEYf, Under Secretary. "
( 3 ) THE first contention or the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this notification docs not comply with sub-clause (1) of Article 77 of the C
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
