1959 (3) TMI 72 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act.
2. Validity of the Declaration under Section 6 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act.
3. Authority and delegation of powers to the Secretary and Assistant Secretary to issue the Notification and Declaration.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notification under Section 4:

The court examined whether the Notification issued under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act was valid. Section 4 states that "The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any area specified in the notification to be a notified area if it is satisfied that any land in such area is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose." The court found that the essential prerequisite of a notification under Section 4 is the satisfaction of the Government that the land is needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose. The court concluded that the order made by the Secretary authorizing the Assistant Secretary to dispose of certain matters was sufficient to delegate to the Assistant Secretary the duty of being satisfied under Section 4. Thus, the notification under Section 4 was deemed valid.

2. Validity of the Declaration under Section 6:

The court scrutinized the validity of the Declaration under Section 6, which requires two conditions to be satisfied: the sanction of a development scheme by the State Government under Section 5(2) and the satisfaction of the State Government that the land is needed for executing the scheme. The court found that the sanction of the scheme or the satisfaction required under Section 6 was not by or of the Government in accordance with law. The court held that the duty of being satisfied under Section 6 and the duty of giving sanction under Section 5(2) was not delegated to the Assistant Secretary or anyone else and had to be performed by the Minister in charge. Since the matter was not placed before the Minister at any stage, the declaration under Section 6 was invalid.

3. Authority and Delegation of Powers:

The court addressed whether the functions of the State Government relating to the sanction and satisfaction under Sections 5 and 6 could be delegated to subordinate officers. The court referred to Articles 154 and 166 of the Constitution, which allow the Governor to act either directly or through officers subordinate to him. The court concluded that the delegation of executive functions is permissible provided it is in pursuance of authority given by the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3). However, the court found that the specific standing orders made by the Minister required certain matters to be brought to his personal notice before the issue of orders. Since the matters under Sections 5 and 6 were not placed before the Minister, the delegation was not in accordance with the standing orders, rendering the sanction and satisfaction invalid.

Conclusion:

The court modified the order of the learned Judge to the extent that the notification under Section 4 should not be set aside, affirming the validity of the notification. However, the declaration under Section 6 was set aside due to the lack of proper sanction and satisfaction by the State Government. The appeals were dismissed with costs in Appeal No. 397 and no costs in Appeal No. 398.