DEVJI VALLABHBHAI TANDEL ETC. versus THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GOA, DAMAN & DIU & ANR.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 29-03-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
:;J 
,.,. 
"' ij 
;f;: 
DEVJI VALLABHBHAI TANDEL ETC. 
v. 
THE ADMINJSTRATOR OF GOA, DAMAN & 
DIU & ANR., 
March 29, 1982 
[D.A. DESAI, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL lsLAM, JJ.J 
553 
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities 
Act-Section 3-Detention order passed by Administrator of Goa-Administrator, 
if coTnpetent to pas1 Juch order. 
Detenu-W/tetMr .haJ a right to be represent~d by a legal practitioner, or 
· friend or agent IMfore the Advisory Board. 
'Union Territories Act, 1963-Sectlon 46(2)-Scope o~Administrator­
WhetMr bound by the advice of Council of Ministers. 
Iri thejr petitions under Article 32 of the Con,stitutioo the three petitioners, 
who were detained under sectii:>n 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and 
Prevention of Smugglin's: Activities Act, 1974, contended that in the mattir of 
discharge of executive •functions conferred upon him, the Administrator of the 
Union Territory of Goa, Daman -and Diu who passed the impugned oi'ders, is in 
the same pqsition as a Governor of a State of the President who must act on the 
iid and advice of the Council of Ministers and,that in theinstant'case the orders 
of detention having been passed by the Administrator himself instead of by the 
Chief Minister io the name pf the Ad.;,iolstrator, were invalid. 
Dismissing the petitions, 
HELD : I, (a) Although section 46(2) of the Union Territories Act, 1963 
provides that aU executive action of the AdministratOr, Whet,her tak~n on the 
advice of his Ministers or otherwise shall be expressed to be taken in the na•11e 
of the Administrator, the Administrator is not pureiy a constitutional functionary 
who is bound to act on the advice of the Council of Miqisters and could not act 
on his own. The language of Arts.· 74 and 163 on the one hand and the language 
of section 44 of the Union Territories Act 1963 on the other shows that the 
Administrator is siffiilarly situated with. thC Governor but not with the President 
when he is to act in his discretio:i;i unde( the Act. While exercising judicial or 
0quasi judicial functions, the Administrator has to act on hi!i own unaided by. the 
Council of Ministers like the President who, while exercising power conferred.by 
Article 217(3), disl'harl!OS a juqiciat [unction 11!\q is not required t.o act oq IQ<; 
' 
• 
A 
c 
D 
E 
, F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
\ 
D 
E 
\ 
,G 
H 
\ 
554 
SUPREME COURT !lEPOR'rS 
(1982) 3 S.C.R. 
advice of the Council of Ministers. But there the analogy ends. The Adminis-
trator, even in matters where he is not required to act in his diseretion u~der the 
Act or where he is. not exercising any judicial or quasi-judicial functions, is not 
bound to act according to the advice of the Council. of Ministers. In the event 
of difference between him and his Ministers, ~he Administrator under the proviso 
to section 44(1) of the Act, is required to refer the matter to the President for 
decision and act according to that decision. Therefore in such a situation the 
rigb,t to give a decision on the difference of opinion between the two vests in the 
Union Government and the Council of Ministers of the Union Territory is 
bound by the view of the Union Government. There are also powers in the 
Administrator to act in derogation of the advice of the Council of Ministets. 
' 
[560 C-D, 561 A-HJ 
- ' 
' 
(b) The proviso to section 44(1) of the Act a1so envisages that when a 
,--~
difference of opinion between him and the Council of Ministers is referred to the 
r-
Pfesident, if the Administrator considers the matter urgent and necessary to take 
immediate action during the interregnu~, he can completely override the advice 
of the Council of-Ministers and act according to his own lights which power 
..J.-._ 
neither the Governor nor the President enjoys. [562 A-Cl 
Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, [1976] l SCR 814 held in-
applicable. 
2 .. The grievance that the detaining authority had no material from 
which to infer that the petitioners Were engaged in smuggling activities is not 
borne out by the material ,_on rCcord·. Copies of recorded statements and ct.her 
relevant documents had been taken into-consideration by the deJaining a~thority. 
These copies were supplied to the detenu. [563 A-Bl 
3. It cannot be said that there was. any violation of Article 22(5) of the 
Constitution or that the detenu was in any way handicapped in submitting his 
representation. A Gujarati translation of the grounds of detention was supplied 
t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.