State of M.P. vs Arvind Sharma

Heard. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner for review of the order dt. 30.10.2013 passed in W.A. No. 244/2013.

Learned Single Judge quashed the externment proceeding passed against the respondent under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred as ''the Adhiniyam'') on the ground that the Additional District Magistrate, who passed the order, had no power and authority to pass the order. We have dismissed the Writ Appeal.

Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that Section 13(1) of the Adhiniyam gives power to the State Government or the officer specifically empowered by the State Government in that behalf to pass the order and the State Government authorised the Additional District Magistrate to pass the order of externment, hence, the order was in accordance with law.

We have relied on the judgment passed by the constitution bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has considered the provisions of Section 3(2) and Section 40(2) of the Defence of India Act 1962. In that rule also there was a provision that the Government can delegate its power to any officer or authority subordinate to it. Hon''ble Supreme Court has interpreted that rule and held that the power of delegation, however, must be read harmoniously with Section 3(2)(15) and therefore u/s 40(2) of the Adhiniyam, the Government can not delegate its power to detain to any officer below the rank of District Magistrate.

We have applied the same analogy in the present case. It is also in accordance with the principle of statutory interpretation, which gives power to the court of reading down the provisions. If arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General is accepted, then the State Government can delegate its power to any officer means, Tahsildar, Naib Tahsildar or Revenue Inspector or any other officer, which in our opinion, would be contrary to the provisions of the Adhiniyam and it would create an absurdity. In such circumstances, in our opinion, there is no apparent error on the face of the record. Review petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.