2020 (1) TMI 1463 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - power of Director to delegate power of deciding revision filed under section 32 of Act, 1964 upon Deputy Director - HELD THAT - The definition of Director includes any other officer authorized by director to perform all or any of his functions under the Act, 1964 - Section 32 of the Act, 1964 confers power of revision upon Board. Section 33 which was substituted by U. P. Act No. 10 of 1991 with effect from September 1, 1990 provides that the Board may, by Regulations, delegate, subject to such conditions and restrictions and in such manner, as may be specified therein, any of its power to Director . The petitioners in these writ petitions have not disputed that power of revision is delegated to Director and revisions were preferred by the petitioners to Director. Revisions preferred to Director were transferred to Deputy Director with reference to Board's resolution dated December 12, 1994 and January 19, 1998 and order dated August 13, 1999 and delegation of power by Director to Deputy Director, Varanasi communicated to him vide letter dated September 14, 2007. The power of revision when delegated to Director by virtue of section 33 becomes a function to be performed by Director under the Act, 1964 and, therefore, Director can authorize any other officer to perform all or any of his functions under the Act, 1964 which includes delegated powers to be performed by Director under section 32 of the Act, 1964 - the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that power exercised by Deputy Director in deciding revision is bad in law as he had no jurisdiction to decide revision and Director had no power to authorize Deputy Director to decide revision, cannot be accepted. The issues answered against petitioners.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and authority of the Deputy Director to decide revisions under Section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act, 1964.
2. Validity of the delegation of powers by the Director to the Deputy Director.
3. Legality of the demand raised from the petitioners.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Deputy Director:
The primary issue in all the writ petitions is whether the Director was competent to delegate the power of deciding revisions filed under Section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act, 1964 (the Act, 1964) to the Deputy Director. The petitioner argued that the Deputy Director had no authority or jurisdiction to decide the revision as the Director himself was exercising delegated power and had no authority to further delegate or sub-delegate his power. The court examined the relevant sections of the Act, 1964, particularly Sections 2(h), 26I, 27, 32, 33, and 33A, and Rule 135 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Rules, 1965 (the Rules, 1965). The court concluded that the power of revision when delegated to the Director by virtue of Section 33 becomes a function to be performed by the Director under the Act, 1964. Therefore, the Director can authorize any other officer to perform all or any of his functions under the Act, 1964, which includes delegated powers to be performed by the Director under Section 32 of the Act, 1964.

2. Validity of Delegation of Powers:
The court referred to the principle "delegatus non potest delegare," which means a delegate has no power to delegate. However, it noted that this principle has a different field of operation in the context of legislative powers vis-a-vis non-legislative/administrative powers. The court cited various judgments, including Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, and Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., to support the view that non-legislative/administrative powers can be delegated if the statute allows it. The court found that the delegation of power by the Director to the Deputy Director was valid and within the scope of the Act, 1964. The court emphasized that once the power is conferred and the decision-making is performed by the primary delegate, the implementation of the decision can be handled by authorized officers.

3. Legality of the Demand Raised:
The court did not address the merits of the issue regarding the validity of the demand raised from the petitioners, as the arguments were focused on the jurisdiction and delegation of powers. Therefore, the court did not examine whether the demand raised from the petitioners was valid or not.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Deputy Director had the valid authority to decide the revisions under Section 32 of the Act, 1964, as the Director was authorized to delegate such powers. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim orders, if any, were vacated. The court did not address the merits of the demand raised from the petitioners.