RAJNARAIN SINGH versus THE CHAIRMAN, PATNA ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, PATNA, AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 21-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 11 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
May 21. 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
RAJNARAIN SINGH 
v. 
THE CHAIRMAN, PATNA ADMINISTRATION 
COMMITTEE, PATNA, AND ANOTHER. 
[MEHR 
CHAND 
MAHAJAN C.J., 
MuKHERJEA, 
VIVIAN 
_. 
BosE BH-AGWATI and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
Delegation of Legislative power-Limit and tfXtent of-Essen-
~ 
tial Legislative feature-Change of 
policy-Patna 
Administration 
4' 
Act, 1915, (Bihar and Orissa Act I of 1915) as amended by Patna 
Administration (Amendment) Act, 1928 (Bihar and Orissa Act IV 
of 1928), s. 3(1) (!)-Whether intra vires-Bihar and Orissa Muni· 
cipal Act, 1922-Notification by 
Governor-Beyond s. 3(/)(f)-
Ultra vires. 
An executive authority 
can 
be 
authorised by a 
statute to 
modify either existing or future 
laws 
but not in any essential 
feature. 
Exactly 
what 
constitutes 
an essential feature cannot be 
enunciated in general terms but it is clear that modification cannot 
include a change of policy. 
Essential legislative function 
consists 
in the determination of the legislative 
policy 
and its formulation 
as a binding rule of conduct. 
Modifications 
which are authorised 
are limited to local adjustments or changes of minor character and 
do not mean or involve any change of policy or change in the Act. 
Section 3(1)(f) of the Patna Administration Act of 1915 (Bihar 
and ·orissa Act I of 1915) as amended by Patna Administration 
(Amendment) 
Act of 1928 (J?ihar and Orissa Act !Vof 1928) is ¥ 
intra vires because any section or sections of the Bihar Municipal 
Act of 1922 can be picked and applied to Patna (whether with or 
v.rithout modification) 
provided that does not effect any essential 
change in the Act or alter its policy and the words "restriction" and 
~·modification" are used in the restricted sense. 
The notification 
dated 23rd 
April, 
1951 by 
which 
the 
~-
Governor of Bihar picked s. 104 out of the Bihar and Orissa 
Municipal Act of 1922, modified it and extended it in its modified 
form to the Patna Administration and Patna Village areas is ultra 
vires as it effects a radical change in the policy of the Act and thus 
travels beyond the authority conferred by s. 3(1)(£). 
~- '-
In re The Delhi Laws Act 1912, etc. ([1951] S. C.R. 747) applied. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JumsDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
202 of 1953. 
Appeal under 
article 132(1) 
of 
the 
Constitution 
of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd 
day of December, 1952, of 
the High Court of 
Judica-
ture at Patna in Miscellaneous 
Judicial 
Case No. 78 
of 1952. 
> 
, 
) 
.S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
291 
Basant Chandra Ghose (P. K. Chatterjee, with him) 
for the appellant. 
Mahabir Prasad, Advocate-General, of Bihar, (S. P. 
Varma, with him) for respondent No. 2. 
1954. 
May 21. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
BosE J .-The High Court of Patna granted the 
petitioner before it leave to appeal under article 132(1) 
of the 
Constitution on the ground 
that a substantial 
question 
of law relating to the interpretation of the 
·Constitution was involved. 
The appellant is the Secretary of the 
Rate Payers' 
Association at Patna. He and the other members of 
his Association reside in an area which was originally 
outside the municipal limits of Patna and was not liable 
to municipal and cognate taxation. On 18th April, 1951, 
this area was brought within municipal limits and was 
subjected 
to 
municipal 
taxation. 
This 
was 
accom-
plished by a notification of that date. By reason of this 
the appellant and the others whom he represents were 
called upon to pay taxes for the period 1st April, 1951, 
to 31st March, 1952. The notifications were issued 
under sections 3(1)(f) and 5 of the Patna Administra-
tion Act of 1915 (Bihar and Orissa Act I of 1915). The 
appellant claims that the notifications are delegated 
legislation and 
so are bad and prays that sections 
3(1)(f) and 5 of the Act which permitted this delega-
tion be condemned as ultra vires. 
In order to appreciate the points raised it will be 
necessary to go back to the year 1911 when the Pro-· 
vince of Bihar and Orissa was formed. It will also be 
necessary to bear in mind that we have to deal with 
three separate sections in the area which is now called 
Patna. In order to avoid confusion we will call them 
. Patna City, Patna Administration and Patna Village 
respectively. 
It must be 
understood 
that this 
is a 
purely arbitrary nomenclature adopted by us for the 
purposes of this judgment and that they are neither so 
called nor

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