Research › Browse › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 422 (BOM)

Raju son of Krishnasingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra through Deputy Commissioner of Police

1993-09-12

A.A.DESAI

body1993
JUDGMENT- A.A. DESAI, J.:----The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, taking resort to section 56 of the Bombay Police Act (the Act), by an order dated 18-1-1993 directed externment of the petitioner. It is impugned on the ground that the externment is without any authority. 2. The impugned order mentions that the Commissioner of Police has in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act, by order dated 3-2-1988 directed that his power under section 56 of the Act be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Section 56 has authorised the Commissioner of Police appointed under section 7 of the Act to exercise the powers enumerated therein. Section 10 authorises the State Government to appoint one or more Deputy Commissioner of Police. Sub-section (2) of section 10 reads as thus: "Every such Deputy Commissioner shall, under the orders of the Commissioner, exercise and perform any of the powers, functions and duties of the Commissioner to be exercised or performed by him under the provisions of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in accordance with general or special orders of the State Government made in this behalf." (Emphasis supplied by me). These provisions enable the Commissioner of Police to delegate his powers to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. However, such delegation as emphasised needs to be in accordance with the general or special orders of the State Government issued in this behalf. 3. I have heard Smt. Khade, A.P.P. for the State on 7-12-1993. The case was adjourned to point out any of the orders issued by the State Government as envisaged by sub-section (2) of section 10, so as to enable the Commissioner of Police to delegate his powers or authority to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. I have heard the matter to-day. On behalf of the State, issuance of any such order as envisaged by sub-section (2) of section 10 could not be pointed out. 4. In the absence of any such order by the State Government, the Commissioner of Police cannot delegate his powers or authority under sub-section (2) of section 10 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. As such, the impugned order is without any authority and is, therefore, quashed. Order quashed.