Madhya Pradesh High Court
Indu Gupta vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 14 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)MPLJ146
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
ORDER R.S. Garg, J.
1. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the orders dated 11-5-1984, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in case No. 194-B/121/82-83 directing eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 and the appellate order passed by Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur in appeal case No. 109-B/121/83-84, dated 20-5-1985.
2. The brief facts leading to the petition are that the respondent No. 2 Sub-Divisional Officer after receipt of a letter from the Collector, Rajnandgaon registered the proceedings under the provisions of M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974 (Act hereinafter) on the premises that the property belonged to the State Government and as the same was required for the activities of the school, the occupant (since deceased, represented by the legal representative is liable to be evicted. Apart from various objections, the occupant had submitted before the S.D.O. that it had no jurisdiction to act as a competent authority and should not pass an order for eviction. The objection was overruled by the competent authority holding that as the matter has been referred to him by the Collector and as under the distribution memo he was allotted the work under the Act, he was entitled to exercise the powers. The objections did not find any favour in the appeal even.
3. Shri Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for appointment of a competent authority the State must issue a notification in the official gazette and appoint such person being an officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector as competent authority for the purposes of the Act and define the local limits within which or the categories of public premises in respect of which the competent authority shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed on competent authority by or under the Act.
4. Section 17 of the Act authorises the State Government to delegate the powers. According to Section 17, the State Government may by notification in the official gazette, direct that any power exercisable by it under the Act shall subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification being exercisable also by an officer of the State Government. Exercising the powers Under Section 17, the State Government has issued notification No. F-13-1-75-II-A(3), dated 5th February, 1975, published in M.P. Rajpatra, Part I, dated 16-4-1976 (page 694). According to the notification, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17 of the Act the State Government directed that the powers exercisable by it Under Section 3 of the Act shall also be exercisable by all Collectors within their respective jurisdictions. According to Section 3, as observed above, the State by notification in the official gazette may appoint certain person as competent authority for the purposes of the Act. The powers which vested in the Government Under Section 3, by virtue of the notification can also be exercised by the Collectors within their respective jurisdiction. The words "State Government may, by notification in the official gazette" after the notification may now be read because of the delegation of the powers in favour of the Collectors, as "the Collector may, by notification in the official gazette_____________", if the State was required to issue a notification in the official gazette for appointment of certain person/persons as competent authority for the purpose of the Act and define the local limits within which or the categories of public premises in respect of which the competent authority should exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on competent authority by or under the Act, then any person in whose favour the powers have been delegated by the State Government, as a delegatee of the powers cannot exercise the powers which did not vest in the person who delegated the powers. If the State was required to issue a notification then the Collector is also bound to issue a notification for appointing the person as competent authority and define the local limits, etc.
5. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show, suggest or prove that the Collector, Rajnandgaon ever got a notification issued or published in the official gazette that a particular named S.D.O. would exercise the powers under the provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the respondents that such notification was ever issued or published. The S.D.O. in its order and the Commissioner while confirming the order in the appellate order have observed that as the matter was referred by the Collector to the S.D.O. and as under the distribution memo the S.D.O. was competent to hear and decide the matter, the competent authority had the jurisdiction. In my opinion, the approach of the S.D.O. and the Commissioner is patently illegal. If there was no notification in favour of the named S.D.O. to exercise the powers under the Act, then a mere reference by the Collector either personally or under the distribution memo would not clothe the S.D.O. with powers to act as competent authority.
6. As the S.D.O. was not competent and authorised to act and exercise powers as a competent authority, the order passed by the S.D.O. and confirmed by the Commissioner in appeal deserve to be quashed as absolutely illegal. The orders are accordingly quashed. The proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer are also quashed. The petition is allowed. But, however, there shall be no order as to costs. Security amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner be refunded, after due verification.