1958 (9) TMI 84 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the State Government could delegate its powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, to the Additional Director Consolidation with retrospective effect.
2. The legality of the notification dated 12-2-1958 regarding the delegation of powers.
3. The validity of the order dated 21-7-1957 made by the Additional Director Consolidation.
4. The applicability of the principle of ratification in the context of the delegation of powers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delegation of Powers with Retrospective Effect:
The primary question was whether the State Government could delegate its powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, to the Additional Director Consolidation with effect from a prior date, namely, 17-6-1957. The court examined the nature of the delegation and concluded that the act of delegation is executive or administrative and does not involve any exercise of subordinate legislative functions. The court emphasized that only a sovereign legislature can enact laws with retroactive or retrospective operation, and such power does not extend to executive actions unless expressly conferred by the legislature. The court cited the principle that retrospective force is not ascribed to new laws affecting rights unless explicitly intended by the legislature.

2. Legality of the Notification Dated 12-2-1958:
The notification issued on 12-2-1958 purported to delegate the powers of the State Government under Section 42 of the Act to the Additional Director Consolidation with retrospective effect from 17-6-1957. The court analyzed the provisions of the Punjab Consolidation Act, particularly Sections 41 and 42, and concluded that the delegation of powers with retrospective effect was not permissible. The court noted that the notification did not fall within the category of a rule or regulation, which could potentially have retrospective effect if explicitly stated. The court held that the notification was ultra vires and illegal to the extent that it purported to delegate powers with retrospective effect.

3. Validity of the Order Dated 21-7-1957:
The order dated 21-7-1957 made by the Additional Director Consolidation was challenged on the ground that the officer did not have the authority to exercise the powers of the State Government under Section 42 at that time. The court found that the Additional Director was not competent to exercise these powers on 21-7-1957, as the delegation of such powers with retrospective effect was not valid. Consequently, the order was deemed without jurisdiction and void.

4. Principle of Ratification:
The State contended that even if the delegation of powers with retrospective effect was not permissible, the principle of ratification should apply, and the acts of the Additional Director should be considered ratified by the State Government. The court rejected this argument, stating that ratification applies to acts that were capable of being done by the principal himself and were not void in their inception. The notification of 12-2-1958 did not purport to ratify any specific acts but rather conferred powers in general terms. The court held that delegation of powers is distinct from ratification under the Law of Agency.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the State Government could not delegate its powers under Section 42 of the Act with retrospective effect. The notification dated 12-2-1958 was declared ultra vires and illegal to the extent it purported to delegate powers with retrospective effect. Consequently, the order dated 21-7-1957 made by the Additional Director Consolidation was quashed. The petition was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.