K.M. Joseph JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These two appeals raising similar question of law has been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. State of Madhya Pradesh has filed the appeal questioning the judgment of Division Bench of the High Court dated 30.10.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No. 244 of 2013 and judgment of Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 71 of 2014 dated 20.06.2014 following the earlier judgment dated 30.10.2013.
3. For deciding the appeals, it shall be sufficient to refer to the facts in Criminal Appeal - The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Dharmendra Rathore. The Additional District Magistrate, Gwalior has passed an order dated 26.02.2013 externing the Respondent for a period of one year from the district concerned. An appeal was filed by the Respondent against the order of the Additional District Magistrate before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division, which too was dismissed on 17.06.2013. A writ Petition No. 4818 of 2013 was filed by the Respondent challenging the order of the Additional District Magistrate as well as of the Commissioner, Gwalior Division. The main ground taken by the Respondent before the High Court was that the Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam, 1990"). The order can be passed only by District Magistrate. Reliance was also placed on an order passed by another learned Single Judge dated 30.05.2013 in Writ Petition No. 8555/2012 - Arvind Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. The High Court relying on judgment of Arvind Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. allowed the writ petition holding that Additional District Magistrate was incompetent to pass the order under the Adhiniyam, 1990. Writ Appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court by the State of Madhya Pradesh being Writ Appeal No. 71 of 2014. By judgment and order dated 20.06.2014, the writ appeal has been dismissed by Division Bench relying on its judgment in Writ Appeal No. 244 of 2013 dated 30.10.2013 - State of Madhya Pradesh v. Arvind Sharma, in which judgment, the High Court after considering the provisions of Sections 3, 13 and 29 of the Adhiniyam, 1990 and relying on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Ajaib Singh v. Gurbachan Singh AIR 1965 SC 1619 held that the order could not have been passed by any authority lower than the rank of District Magistrate. State aggrieved by the order has come up in this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in support of the appeal contends that High Court committed error in relying on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Ajaib Singh v. Gurbachan Singh (supra). He submits that in the case of Ajaib Singh (supra), this Court had occasion to consider the provisions of Defence of India Act, 1962 and Defence of India Rules, which contained a different statutory scheme. The Statutory Scheme in the Adhiniyam, 1990 being different, the said judgment was not applicable. It is submitted that Additional District Magistrate was fully competent to pass the order under the Adhiniyam, 1990.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respon........