Scribd
Upload
66 views1 page

Legal Grounds Pleaded: State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vdharmendrarathore

The document summarizes the legal grounds pleaded in two cases, State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vDharmendraRathore and State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vRamuBrijmohan Jadon. The key legal arguments made were that the Additional District Magistrate had the power to exercise certain sections of the Act as delegated by the State Government, the power to delegate a District Magistrate's powers is governed by a different section than the power to delegate the State Government's own powers, and the High Court misapplied a previous case and failed to properly consider the different scopes of the relevant sections.

Uploaded by

Vaibhav Gupta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
66 views1 page

Legal Grounds Pleaded: State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vdharmendrarathore

The document summarizes the legal grounds pleaded in two cases, State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vDharmendraRathore and State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vRamuBrijmohan Jadon. The key legal arguments made were that the Additional District Magistrate had the power to exercise certain sections of the Act as delegated by the State Government, the power to delegate a District Magistrate's powers is governed by a different section than the power to delegate the State Government's own powers, and the High Court misapplied a previous case and failed to properly consider the different scopes of the relevant sections.

Uploaded by

Vaibhav Gupta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

 vDharmendraRathore

And

State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. vRamuBrijmohan Jadon

Legal Grounds Pleaded

1. The Additional District Magistrate could exercise power under Section 3, 4, 5, and 6 of
the Act in view of being empowered in that behalf by the State Government by
Notification dated 5.3.2003 issued under Section 13(1) of the Act.
2. The power to delegate under Section 29 of the Act is confined to the powers and duties of
'the State Government’ and not of District Magistrate. The power to delegate the powers
of District magistrate is governed by Section 18 of the Act.
3. The decision in Ajaib Singh is distinguishable and the High Court misapplied the same to
the facts of the present case.
4. The provisions of an act are to be read as a whole or in isolation.
5. The High Court wrongly read Section 13 and Section 18 on one hand and Section 29 on
the other together. However, the two provisions operate in different fields.
6. The High Court failed to consider the difference of scope of provisions of Section 13 and
18 refers to power of State Government to delegate the powers of District Magistrate, the
provision of Section 29 refers to power of the State Government to delegate its own
power. The provision of Section 29 does not apply when the power under Section 13 or
18 is exercised. 

You might also like