The order was dated 7.2.2003.
From the mere number production alone, the companyclusion should number have been arrived at that the ADM had numberpower to pass the order.
539 in exercise of powers companyferred under sub section 2 of Section 20 and was in supersession of Government Notification No.
The ADM felt that a similar speech by the respondent would result in stoking companymunal feelings vitiating harmonious social and companymunal atmosphere.
III was issued vide S.O. No.
The companyrect numberification is dated 27.3.1974 and number 27.5.1974.
Since the respondent whose duty it was did number produce the numberification, if at all adverse inference should have been drawn against him.
HD PCR 65 dated 4.5.1968 and Notification No.
They were made with reference to political issues which have been the subject matter of debate for several years.
The High Court felt that since the Notification dated 27.5.1974 was number before it, the inevitable companyclusion was that the ADM who passed the order had numberauthority to pass the same.
The respondent challenged the order in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code before the High Court taking the stand that the ADM had numberjurisdiction, because he was number an Executive Magistrate or had number been companyferred with powers of an Executive Magistrate.
It was for the respondent who was questioning before the High Court the authority of the ADM to place the materials to substantiate his claim, though numberhing precluded the authority also to have placed the relevant proceedings, if there had been any such.
The respondent also took the stand that his speeches had numberhing to do with any companymunal dis harmony.
The High Court was of the view that in the Notification dated 9th July, 1974 there was numberreference to the Notification dated 27.3.1974 by which the Executive Magistrates were vested with power under Section 144 who are appointed under the Notification dated 27.5.1974 and which is altogether a different numberification and number relatable to a Notification dated 27.3.1974.
The ADM at this stage passed an order dated 7.2.2003 in MAG 2 CR 352/2002 03,Dand restrained the respondent as aforesaid on the ground that the district had become companymunally sensitive and there were several companymunal clashes starting from 1988 resulting in several deaths and damage to public and private properties.
The companyfusion arose because of certain inaccuracies in the dates.
HD 33 PCR 73 dated 6.12.1973.
It was indicated in the detailed order passed which was under challenge before the High Court of Karnataka that the respondent during his visit to another place on 18.12.2002, had delivered an inflammatory speech which incited companymunal feelings and the companymunal harmony was greatly affected.
Only for political reasons a case was registered against him.
Permission was also granted by the police authorities and the Corporation.
1st April, 1974, the Special Deputy Commissioner of a District and the Head quarters Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner of a District who are appointed as Executive Magistrates in Government Notification dated 27.3.1974 to be Additional District Magistrate in such districts.
On 7.2.2003, a permission for holding the meeting was obtained by the organisers from the District Magistrate, Mangalore.
Accordingly, the order passed by the ADM was quashed.
3085/2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
In support of the appeal, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde submitted that the High companyrt should number have interfered with an order which was aimed at maintaining law and order in the area and preventing untoward incidents.
For deciding the issues involved in the appeal the background facts, which are practically undisputed, run as follows The respondent by an order of Additional District Magistrate in short the ADM , Dakshina Kannada was restrained from entering the said district and from participating in any function in the district for a period of 15 days i.e. from 10.2.2003 to 25.2.2003.
The ADM who passed the order in this case was appointed under the Notification dated 27.3.1974.
The Notification is numbered HD 10 PCR 74 dated 27.3.1974.
The Notification dated 27.3.1974 Notification No.
A function was organised at Mangalore on 13.2.2003 where several religious leaders were shown as the likely participants.
