1967 Supreme(MP) 106

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K.N. WANCHOO, R.S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, G.K. MITTER & K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
Union of India and another
Vs.
P.K. Roy and others
C.A. No. 618 of 1966
Decided on: 9-11-1967

Headnote:(1) Delegation of power - administrative authority having statutory power - how far may entrust a delegate its statutory functions.

       (2) Legal Maxims - delegatus non potest delegare - when applicable.

       The maxim delegatus non potest delegare deals with the extent to which a statutory authority may permit another to exercise a discretion entrusted by the statute to itself. It is true that delegation in its general sense does not imply a parting with statutory powers by the authority which grants the delegation, but points rather to the conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that administrative authority would have to do for itself. If, however, the administrative authority named in the statute has and retains in its hand general control over the activities of the person to whom it bas entrusted in part the exercise of its statutory power and the control exercised by the administrative authority is of a substantial degree, there is in the eye of law no delegation at all and the maxim 'delegatus non potest delegare' does not apply.

       If a statutory authority empowers a delegate to undertake preparatory work and to take an initial decision in matters entrusted to it but retains in its own hands the power to approve or disapprove the decision after it has been taken, the decision will be held to have validly mace if the degree of control maintained by the authority is close enough for the decision to be regarded as the authority's own. (1955) 2 SCR 1331, 1941 Ch. 450, 1911 AC 179 and 1915 AC 120 relied on. [Para 9

       (3) States Reorganisation Act, 1956-Ss. 115 (5) & 117 - integration of services-principles of services laid down by the Union Government-State Government directed to publish gradation list under directions of the Union Government- final orders passed by the Central Government- essential functions of the Union Government not delegated-delegation not improper.

       Assuming that under sections 115 (5) and 117 of the Act the task of integration was exclusively entrusted to the Central Government, the steps taken by the Central Government in the present case in the matter of integration did not amount to any delegation of its essential statutory functions.

       There is nothing in section 115 or 117 of the Act which prohibits the Central Government in any way from taking the aid and assistance of the State Government in the matter of the integration of the services. The act of ultimate integration was done with the sanction and approval of the Central Government and the Central Government exercised general control over the activities of the State Government in the matter, the publication of gradation list by the State Government was not bad due to improper delegation of statutory powers by the Central Government. 1964 JLJ 591= ILR 1966 M.P. 200 reversed on this point. [Para 9]

       (4) Natural Justice-doctrine of-scope-administrative authority-applicability of the doctrine.

       The extent and application of the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the straight jacket of a rigid formula. The application of the doctrine depends upon the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, upon the character of the rights of the persons affected, the scheme and policy of the statute and other relevant circumstances disclosed in the particular case. (1965) 3 SCR 218 referred to. [Para 10]

       (5) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - S. 115(5) - opportunity to make a representation given against preliminary list-normally this one opportunity sufficient-second opportunity to make a representation against final list may be given in appropriate cases.

       Normally speaking, one opportunity for making representation against the preliminary list published would have been sufficient to satisfy the requirements of law. But looking to the special circumstances of a case when the principles followed in preparing the preliminary list were changed by the Central Government, a civil servant is entitled to make a second representation with regard to the new principles before the final gradation list was published. 1964 JLJ 591=ILR 1966 MP 200 approved on this point. [Para 10]