1967 (1) TMI 77 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification issued under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948.
2. Whether the satisfaction required under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act must be that of the Governor himself.
3. The legality of the delegation of functions by the Minister-in-charge to subordinate officers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notification Issued Under Section 4 of the Act:

The Court examined whether the notification issued by the Assistant Secretary under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, was valid. The appellant contended that the notification was void as it was issued without the Minister-in-charge's involvement, contrary to the Standing Orders. The State argued that the notification was valid as it was authenticated as per the rules under Article 166(2) of the Constitution, which makes the order conclusive as being made by the Governor.

The Court held that the issue of a notification under Section 4 does not require the involvement of the Minister-in-charge, as it is not covered by item 18 of Standing Order No. 2. The Land Planning Committee, which is the prescribed authority under the Act, does not have a duty or function at the stage of issuing a notification under Section 4. The notification issued by the Assistant Secretary was valid as it was in line with the delegation of authority under Standing Order No. 5.

2. Satisfaction Required Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act:

The appellant argued that the satisfaction required under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act should be that of the Governor himself, as the executive power of the State is vested in the Governor under Article 154(1) of the Constitution. The State countered that the satisfaction of the Governor is not necessary, as the business of the Government is transacted by Ministers and their subordinates under the Rules of Business framed by the Governor under Article 166(3).

The Court agreed with the State's argument, holding that the Governor's personal satisfaction was not necessary. The satisfaction required under Sections 4 and 6 is that of the State Government, which can be exercised by the Minister-in-charge or delegated to subordinate officers. The Court cited previous judgments, including R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, to support its view that the provisions of Article 166 are directory and not mandatory.

3. Legality of Delegation of Functions by the Minister-in-charge:

The appellant contended that the Minister-in-charge could not delegate the functions under the Act to subordinate officers, and even if such delegation was permissible, it was not done in this case. The State argued that the Minister-in-charge had the authority to delegate functions under the Rules of Business and had done so through Standing Orders.

The Court examined the Standing Orders made by the Minister-in-charge and found that the delegation of authority to the Assistant Secretary to issue the notification under Section 4 was valid. The Court noted that the Minister-in-charge had made Standing Orders under Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules of Business, authorizing the Secretary to permit subordinate officers to dispose of certain cases. The notification issued by the Assistant Secretary was in conformity with these Standing Orders.

Conclusion:

The Court upheld the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, dismissing the appeals. The Court found that the notification did not require the involvement of the Minister-in-charge, as it was not covered by item 18 of Standing Order No. 2. The satisfaction required under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act was that of the State Government, which could be exercised by the Minister-in-charge or delegated to subordinate officers. The delegation of authority to the Assistant Secretary was valid under the Standing Orders made by the Minister-in-charge. The appeals were dismissed with costs to the respondents.