Forum Database Glossary
Library Home » Topics » God or Government » Administrative Law

Administrative Law

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 0 reply threads
  • Author
    • #112117 Reply
      Tina DU

      Huth v. Clarke: 25 Q.B.D. 391, with approval:- “Delegation, as the word is generally used, does not
      imply a parting with powers by the person who grants the delegation, but points rather to the conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to do himself.”

      (a) The appeal against the order of Registrar to the Single Judge amount to a delegator
      examining the order passed by delegate and does not amount to an appeal under Code of Civil Procedure .(b) A letters patent appeal to DB against the order of single Judge from an order passed by Registrar is not barred under S. 100 A of CPC. (c) Delegation, as the word is generally used does not imply a parting with powers by the person who grants the delegation, but points rather to the conferring of an
      authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to do himself.

      Roop Chand v. State of Punjab: AIR 1963 SC 1503
      considered the question whether an Order passed by a
      delegate of the government was an order of the government
      or the delegate, in the context of East Punjab Holdings
      (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948
      and held as under:
      “11. The question then arises, when the Government
      delegates its power, for example, to entertain and
      decide an appeal under Section 21(4), to an officer
      and the officer pursuant to such delegation hears the
      appeal and makes an order, is the order an order of
      the officer or of the Government? We think it must be
      the order of the Government. The order is made
      under a statutory power. It is the statute which creates
      that power. The power can, therefore, be exercised
      only in terms of the statute and not otherwise. In this
      case the power is created by Section 21(4). That
      section gives a power to the Government. It would
      follow that an order made in exercise of that power will
      be the order of the Government for no one else has
      the right under the statute to exercise the power. No
      doubt the Act enables the Government to delegate its
      power but such a power when delegated remains the
      power of the Government, for the Government can
      only delegate the power given to it by the statute and
      cannot create an independent power in the officer.
      When the delegate exercises the power, he does so
      for the Government. It is of interest to observe here
      that Wills, J. said in Huth v. Clarke [LR (1890) 25
      QBD 391] that “the word delegate means little more
      than an agent”. An agent of course exercises no
      powers of his own but only the powers of his principal.
      Therefore, an order passed by an officer on delegation
      to him under Section 41(1) of the power of the
      Government under Section 21(4), is for the purposes of the Act, an order of the Government. If it were not
      so and it were to be held that the order had been
      made by the officer himself and was not an order of
      the Government and of course it had to be one or the
      other then we would have an order made by a person
      on whom the Act did not confer any power to make it.
      That would be an impossible situation. There can be
      no order except as authorized by the Act. What is true
      of Section 21(4) would be true of all other provisions
      in the Act conferring powers on the Government
      which can be delegated to an officer under Section
      41(1). If we are wrong in the view that we have taken,
      then in the case of an order made by an officer as
      delegate of the Government’s power under Section
      21(4) we would have an appeal entertained and
      decided by one who had no power himself under the
      Act to do either. Plainly, none of these things could be


      1. Doctor Morepan Ltd. and Anr. vs. Poysha Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. FAO(OS) No. 403/2013.
      2. Avtar Narain Behal vs. Subhash Chander Behal: 154 (2008) DLT 140.
      3. Akash Gupta vs. Frankfinn Institute of Air Hostess Training & Anr.: AIR 2006 Delhi 325.
      4. Kamal Kumar Dutta & Anr. vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. & Ors.: (2006) 7 SCC 613.
      5. Godawari S. Parulekar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra: AIR 1966 SC 1404.
      6. Roop Chand vs. State of Punjab: AIR 1963 SC 1503.
Viewing 0 reply threads
Reply To: Administrative Law
Your information: