SAURABH KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner by way of Public Interest Litigation assailing the administrative order (Annexure P-1), dated 1-3-2012 passed by respondent. No. 2 whereby the powers have been assigned to the Deputy Collectors, Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars and Revenue Inspectors of Gwalior District as per the schedule attached to the said order to function in their respective areas. By the said order, the Deputy Collectors were also assigned the powers of Rent Controlling Authorities in Gwalior. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that as per aforesaid memo, the Deputy Collectors are directed to discharge the functions of Rent Controlling Authority, Gwalior by respondent No. 2. It is his contention that the said appointment has not been made as per Section 28 of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961"). Shri Jain submits that as per sub-section (1), the appointment of the Rent Controlling Authority has to be made by the Collector with the previous approval of State Government, who is not an Officer below the rank of Deputy Collector. As per sub-section (2) of the Act, the Collector of the District further conferred with the power to appoint one or more Rent Controlling Authorities in similar manner to assist the Rent Controlling Authority. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the power of Rent Controlling Authority assigned to the various Deputy Collectors by order (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector without previous approval of the State Government is not in conformity to law, therefore, they cannot be permitted to discharge the function as Rent Controlling Authorities.

(2.) Respondents by filing their return have averred that in the order impugned dated 1-3-2012, respondent No. 2 has made the distribution of work amongst various Deputy Collectors and other Revenue Officers at Gwalior, and also assigned the power to discharge the function of Rent Controlling Authority, which cannot be found at fault, because it is in consonance with the power vested to respondent No. 2 under Section 28 of the Act of 1961. It is further contended that the previous sanction of the Law Department has already been taken, which is apparent from the document (Annexure R-1), dated 5-1-2005, whereby the Law Department has directed that any Deputy Collector may be appointed as Rent Controlling Authority, but not by name and the approval of the State Government is not necessary. However, in view of the opinion of the Law Department, the appointment of the Rent Controlling Authority has rightly been ordered. It is also contended that as per the opinion given by the Law Department repeated approval of the State Government is not required to be obtained. Thus, the appointment of Rent Controlling Authority has rightly been directed by the Collector, Gwalior. It is further said that on account of pendency of number of cases and looking to the spirit of the Act of 1961 the case filed before the Rent Controlling Authorities by the person belonging to special category of landlord ought to have been decided as early as possible enabling them to provide speedy justice, therefore, also the action taken by the respondents vide order (Annexure P-1) is in conformity to law.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and to appreciate the rival contentions, first of all, the provision as contained in Section 28 of the Act of 1961, which deals the appointment of the Rent Controlling Authority is reproduced as thus:--