ISHWAR SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 05-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
ISHWAR SINGH 
v. 
ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
JANUARY 5, 2005 
[AR[J[T PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Co-operative Societies : 
Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965-Section 128-Revision 
under-Authorities to exercise revisional power-State Government and 
Registrar-Distinction between-Compulsory retirement of Appellant 
employee-Revision petition against it allowed by Additional Registrar-On 
further revision before State Government, the order of Additional Registrar 
set aside-On a writ petition filed, High Court held that the Additional Registrar 
had exercised delegated power of the Registrar and not of the State Government, 
and therefore, revision before the State Government was maintainable-On 
appeal, held, State Government was competent to entertain the revision 
application-The two authorities i.e. the State Government and the Registrar 
are not interchangeable-The State Government had nowhere delegated 
revisional power to the Additional Registrar. 
Word~ and Phrases-"Delegation" and "delegate"-Meaning of 
The Appellant was compulsorily retired from service under the 
provisions of Rule 244(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. He 
challenged the said order by way of a revision petition before the 
F Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies who held that Rule 244(2) of 
the Rajasthan Service Rules was not applicable to the employer-society, 
and that Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 was 
applicable and that approval of the Registrar is a condition precedent for 
pre-mature retirement. This order was set aside in revision before the 
G Government. 
The said order was challenged by the appellant under Article 226 
of the Constitution. Single Judge held that Additional Registrar had 
exercised the delegated power of the Registrar and not of the State 
Government and, therefore, the revision before the State Government was 
H 
96 
"" 
,. 
·' 
ISHWAR SINGE v. STATE 
97 
maintainable and the Secretary had jurisdiction to deal with the matter, A 
and in any event, Additional Registrar could not have entertained the 
revision. The judgment of Single Judge was questioned by way of Letters 
Patent Appeal. The LPA was dismissed. 
It was contended by the Appellant that the High Court erred in 
holding that Section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act related B 
to two authorities i.e. the State Government and the Registrar, that the 
two authorities are interchangeable; that if one authority has exercised 
the revisional power, other authority logically could not have exercised 
such power. In any event, second revision was not maintainable; and that 
the Rajasthan Service Rules had no application as the employer had never C 
decided to adopt the service rules. 
The respondents contended that the employer society had decided 
to adopt the Rajasthan Service Rules long before the order directing pre-
mature retirement was passed; that the State Government was competent 
to entertain the revision application as the Registrar was one of the two D 
authorities indicated in Section 128 to exercise revisional power. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The word 'delegation' implies that powers are committed 
to another person or body which are as a rule, always subject to 
resumption by the power delegating. The person delegating does not E 
denude himself. Delegation implies also the power to withdraw delegation. 
The word 'delegate' means little more than an agent. An agent exercises 
no power of his own but only the powers of his principal. In general, a 
delegation of power does not imply parting with authority. The delegating 
body will retain not only power to revoke the grant, but also power to act F 
concurrently on matters within the area of delegated authority except in 
so far as it may already have become bound by an act of its delegate. 
(101-E-G] 
Roop Chand v. State of Punjab and Anr., AIR (1963) SC 1503; Huth 
v. Clarke, 25 Q.B.D. 391 and Ballel/ey v. Finsbury Borough Council, (1958) G 
LG R 165, referred to. 
1.2. If an authority delegates the power to act it shall be deemed to 
be an act of the delegator. In such a situation there is no scope for revision 
of the order of the delegate by the delegator. However, in facts of the 
present case it was in reality not revision by a delegator. The State H 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A Government had nowhere delegated revisional power to the Additional 
Registrar. 1103-A; 

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