4 WPA (P) 104 of 2022 District Magistrate then the State Government by notification can extend it upto six months. In the present case, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home & Hill Affairs Department, has exercised the power under Section 144 without there being any order of the District Magistrate, hence prima-facie the impugned order under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C is without jurisdiction. Learned Advocate General has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Shahabuddin vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2010) 4 SCC 653 in support of his submission that when an authority passes an order which is within its competence, it cannot fail merely because it purports to be made under a wrong provision. But that judgment does not carry the case of the State any further because not only the order has been passed under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. but the order has been passed considering the requirements of Section 144 of the Cr.P.C, therefore, exercise of power and reason for such exercise of power both are prima-facie unsustainable. In the impugned order, a reference has been made to Rule 2(1) and amended Rule 2(A) of the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017. The Rules of 2017 have been issued with the object to regulate the temporary suspension of telecom services due to public emergency