Power under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is quasi-judicial and cannot be delegated to Additional District Magistrate under Section 23(2) CrPC without specific State Government notification under Section 20(2) CrPC.

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Having heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record, pertinent is to note that this intra Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby while allowing the writ petition, the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Wankaner has been set aside on the ground that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to sub delegate his statutory powers under section 16 of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (for short “the Act, 1885”), to any subordinate officer by invoking Section 23(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the CrPC”).

2. It is submitted by Mr. S.P.Hasurkar, learned advocate for the appellants that to understand the meaning of words District Magistrate, the Court has to refer to the provisions of Section 20 and 23 of the CrPC, inasmuch as, the District Magistrate has not been defined under the Act, 1885. The submission is that by cogent reading of Section 20 and 23 of the CrPC, it can be seen that the District Magistrate had authority to distribute its business among the Executive Magistrate subordinate to him. The Additional District Magistrate being the Executive Magistrate subordinate to the District Magistrate, distribution of business of deciding applications under Section 16 of the Act, 1885 by the District Magistrate to the Additional District Magistrate (subordinate to him), cannot be said to be sub-delegation of his power.

2.1. The submission is that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on a wrong misconception that since the statute specifically designates an authority to perform a statutory function, only that authority alone must discharge their duties.

2.2. The contention is that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that since Section 16 of the Act, 1885 expressly vests the power and duty in the District Magistrate, it is the District Magistrate alone who is obliged to discharge such statutory functions and such functions cannot be abdicated or delegated to any subordinate officer under Section 23(2) of the CrPC. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in forming the opinion that the District Magistrate may delegate or entrust administrative functions to subordinates, however, statutory powers specifically conferred upon the District Magistrate by legislation cannot be delegated further, for that would run counter to the express mandate and intent of the statute.

2.3. It is submitted that the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge that once the legislature, in its wisdom, has designated a particular authority to act under a statute, that authority alone must exercise the power and no sub-

delegation is permissible unless expressly authorized. In an effort to demolish these findings returned by the learned Single Judge, the learned Counsel for the appellants would read and re-read the provision of Section 20 and 23 of CrPC.

which are as under :-

“20. Executive Magistrates.—(1) In every district and in every metropolitan area, the State Government may appoint as many persons as it thinks fit to be Executive Magistrates and shall appoint one of them to be the District Magistrate.

(2) The State Government may appoint any Executive Magistrate to be an Additional District Magistrate, and such Magistrate shall have such of the powers of a