HARI CHAND AGGARWAL versus BATALA ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 24-09-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
' 
.. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
HARi CHAND AGGARWAL 
v. 
BATALA ENGINEERING CO. LTD. 
September 24, 1968 
[J.C. SHAH, ACTING C.J., V. RAMASWAMI 
AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Defence of India Act, 1962, ss. 40, 29-Powers of Central Govern• 
ment under s. 29 delegated to District Magistrates-District Magistrate 
whether includes Additional District Magistrate-Effect of 
notification 
issued under s. 10(2) of Code of Criminai Procedure. 
By notification under s. 40(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1962 the 
powers of the Central Government in respect of certain sections of the 
Act including s. 29 thereof were conferred on Collectors, District Magis-
trates, Deputy Commissioners and political officers in Nefa. 
The Addi-
tional District Magistrate of Batala in the Punjab acting under s. 29 of 
the Act passed an order requisitioning a shop belonging to the respondent 
which was occupied by the appellant as a tenant. The appellant chal-
lenged the order of requisition in a writ petition to the High Court with-
out success. 
In appeal before this Court the question that fell 
for 
con.sideration was whether an additional 
District Magistrate was em ... 
powered under s. 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to exercise 
the powers under s. 29 of the Defence of India Act delegated by the 
Central Government to District Magistrates. 
HELD : The powers of reguisitioning are of a very drastic nature 
and involve the fundamental rights in respect of property guaranteed 
under Art. 19 ( 1) (f) of the Constitution. The 
Central 
Government 
while making the delegation of its power under s. 29 of the Act must 
ordinarily be presumed to be fully conscious of this aspect of the matter 
and it was for that reason that an officer or authority of the high status 
of a District Magistrate in the District was empowered to exercise that 
power. 
The're was also no reason in the present case to deviate from the 
normal rule that the expressions or wo'rds used in the notification must be 
read as such and not in any other manner unless the context requires that 
the latter course should be followed, and the words "District Magistrate" 
could not be possibly read as "Additional District Magistrate". [207 B-D] 
The notification issued under s. 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure could not serve to confer on the Additional District Magistr_.ei 
the powers of the District Magistrate under s. 29 of the Defence of India 
Act for the same reasons as prevailed with the Nagpur High Court in 
Prab.hulal Ramkil Kdprd' case in denying to the Additional District 
MagIStrate the . power of the District Magistrate under R. 26 of thi> 
Defence of India Rules. [207 E, 206 E-F] 
Prabhula! Ram/al Kabra v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1944 Nag. 84, approv-
ed and applied. 
Aiaib Singh v. State of Punjab, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 845, Central Talkies 
Ltd, Kw!pur v. Dwarka Prasad, (1961] 3 S.C.R. 495 and Guru Dutt v. 
Sohan Smgh & Anr. I.L.R. 1965 Punj. 134, referred to. 
OvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 681 of 
1966. 
L2Sup C!/69-14 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 
• 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
A 
April 22, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 719 
of 1964. 
B. P. Maheshwari and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellant. 
W, S. Barlingay, Brij Mohan Lal and Ganpat Rai, for res-
pondents Nos. 1 and 3. 
Hardev Singh, R. N. Sachthey, and B. D. Sharma, for respon-
dents Nos. 2, 4 and 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judg-
ment of the Punjab High Court in which the sole question in-
volved is whether the Additional District Magistrate, Gurdaspur 
who had been invested with all the powers of the District Magis-
trate under s. 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure could 
make an order under s. 29(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1962, 
hereinafter called the "Act", requisitioning a shop belonging to 
Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. which was in occupation of the 
appellant as a tenant. 
The facts may be shortly stated. 
The appellant claims to 
have been carrying on the business of a Commission Agent in 
machines in the said shop at Batala for the last 10 years as a 
tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 20. According to the allega-
tions made by the appellant herein in the petition whfch he filed 
in the High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, 
Batala Engineering Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 1 herein) 
had 
filed an application for his ejectment i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.