LexA. SANJEEVI NAIDU ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF MADRAS AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
sn 5 A A. SANJEEVI NAIDU ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF MADRAS AND ANR. February 5, 1970 B [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J, C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE,A. N. GROVER, c D E F G H A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.) Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939, s. 68(c)-Validit~ of schen1e fra1ned upon for11u1tion of requisite opinion hy Secretary and not Minisfr'r. Rule 23-A authoriJi11g Secretary-Vulidity of- -Constitution af India, Art. 166(3 )-Scope of. A draft scheme for the nationalisation of certain transport routes was prepared and published by the respondent State Government under Sec- tion 68(() of the Motor Vehicles Act 4 o[ 1939. The validity of the ~chcmc was challcn¥ed hy the appellants. who \Vere private stage carriage operators, in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but the peti- tion \Vas dismissed hy the High Court. In appeal to this Court the validity of the scheme was mainly challeng- ed on the ground that the opinion requisite under Section 68(C) \\·as not formed by the State Government but by the Secretary to the Go\·ernment acting pursuant to powers conferred on him under Rule .23-A 0f the Madras Government Businc-ss Rule. It was further contended that the ~aid rule was ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution: Parlian1ent has conferred power!'! under Section 68-C to a designated authori:y and that power can be exercised only by the authority specified and no one else. 'fhe authority concerned in the present case was the State Government and it coul<l not have delegated i's statutory 'functions to any one else. By Government \Vas meant the Governor aided and advised by his ~iinis ters. The requisite opinion should therefore have been formed hy the Minister to \\'horn the husincs-; had heen allocated unde·r the Rules. HELD : The function.; under the Motor Vehicles Act had been allocat- C'd by the Governor to the Transport Minister under the Rules and the Secretary of that Ministry had been v;:•lidly authorised under Rule .23-A lo take action under s. 68(C) of the Act. In the very nature of things, neither the Council of Minh.ters nor an individual Minister can attend to the numerous matters that come up be- fore the Government. Those matters have to be attended to and deci- sions taken by various officials at various levels. When those officials dis- charge the functions allotted to them. they are doing so as limbs o'f the Government and not as persons to whom the power of the Govern- ment had been delegated. [513 G] ·Under our Cons!itution. the Governor is essentially a constitutional head; the administration of the State is run by the Council of Ministers. In order to ohviate the difficulty that would arise if the Council of ~inisters had to deal with everv ma'.ter, the Constitution has authorised the Gover- nor under sub-article ·(3) of the Article 166 to make rules for th'! more convenient transaction di the business of the Govenment .of the State and for the allocation amongst its Ministers of the business of Government. All matter-; excepting those in which the Governor is required to act in his discretion have to he allocated to one or the other of the Ministers 'on 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 3 s.c.R. the advice cf the Chief Minister. Apart from allocating business among the Minister", the Governor can also make rules on the advice of his Coun- cil of Ministers for more convenient transaction of business. He can not only allocate the various subjects amongst the Ministers but may $0 further and on the advice of his Ministe·rs, designate a particular official to dis- charge any particular function. [5 l l FJ The cab.inet is responsible to the 'Legislature for every action taken in any O[ the Ministries. This is the essence of joint responsibility, That does not nu:an that each and every decision must be taken by the cabinet. T~e political responsibility of the Council of Ministers does not and cannot predicate th•:: personal responsibility of the Ministers to discharge all or any of the functions of the Government. Similarly an individual Minister is responsible to the Legislature for every action taken or omitted to be taken in his rnini~;try. This again is a political responsibility and not personal rcsponsihility. In every well-planned administration. most of the decisions are taken by the civil servants who are likely to be experts and not sub- ject to polilical prc~surc. The Minister is not expected to hurden himself wi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.