IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4852 of 2009 BIHAR STATE HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWer Corporation Ltd. Sone Bhawan ( Second Floor), Birchand Patel Marg, Patna through its Managing Director, Sri Lallan Prasad Sinha. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 2.The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Supaul 3.The Subdivisional Officer, Birpur, District-Supaul 4.Sri Sanjay Kumar, Block Development Officer, Basantpur Block,District-Supaul. 5.The Superintendent of Police, Supaul --- For the petitioner: Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi,Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar No.1,Advoate For the State: Government Pleader No.16 --- 3. 24.4.2009 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Supaul, by which he has requisitioned the Director’s bungalow of the Bihar State Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. stating that the same was required for holding clean and peaceful Lok Sabha Elections, 2009, for establishing co-ordination with the authorities on the Bihar-Nepal Border and also considering the tour programme of the Election Observers/V.V.I.Ps; as the said Directors’ Bungalow is also being used as a Guest House of the Corporation, for the period 11.4.2009 till 16.5.2009, until the completion of the elections. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate has no such powers to requisition the Director’s bungalow of the petitioner-Corporation for the purposes indicated in the impugned order dated 11.4.2009. Learned counsel for the State refers to paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit in which it is stated that the aforesaid premises has been requisitioned not only for holding election related meetings, but 2 also for all election related works meaning thereby that in case of need it can also be used for storage of ballot boxes before and after the polls under the power conferred by Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the District Election Officer has also, accordingly, requisitioned the said building under Section 160 of the said Act and the same is well within his jurisdiction to pass the order under challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to that states that the District Magistrate has to justify the exercise of his powers under Section 160 of the Act on the basis of the grounds and reasons contained in the impugned order dated 11.4.2009 and he cannot be permitted to supplement or enlarge the grounds/reasons so as to bring the requisition/ order dated 11.4.2009 within the four corners of law. In support of the same, learned counsel relies upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others: A.I.R.1978 S.C. 851, in paragraph No.8 of which it has been held as follows: “8.The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16) ( at p.18): “Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by the public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they 3 grow older.” In view of the aforesaid decision, the District Magistrate being a statutory functionary acting in exercise of powers under Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act,1951 having passed his order on certain grounds the validity of the same has to be judged by the reasons that have been mentioned therein and he cannot be permitted to add fresh grounds in his affidavit so as to bring it under the provisions of Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act. The statements made in paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit are wholly unacceptable and an attempt to supplement the reasons in the impugned order dated 11.4.2009. It is evident that such order cannot be validly passed under Section 160 of the Representation of the People Act. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.4.2009 is quashed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)