Case: M/s. Bejoy Lakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. State of West Bengal &amp; Others

2. The Society of Farmers and Rural Industrialists, of which the third respondent is the Secretary, requested the first respondent, the State of West Bengal, to acquire, compulsorily, certain lands for the establishment of an Agricultural Colony for creating better living conditions therein. The first respondent issued a notification, on February 4, 1955, under S. 4 of the Act, stating that an extent of about 28.59 acres of lands, more fully described therein, and situated in the villages of Ghola and Natagarh, is likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz., the establishment of an agricultural colony and the creation of better living conditions. There is no controversy that a major portion of the lands, comprised in this notification, belonged to the appellant-Mills. The said notification was published in the Calcutta Gazette, on February 17, 1955. This notification was signed by the Assistant Secretary, Land and Revenue Department of the Government of West Bengal.3. The first respondent then directed the Society to prepare a development scheme and submit the same to the Collector, to enable him to hear objections as per the rules framed under the Act. On or about March 21, 1955, the Society submitted a development scheme and the Collector issued notice, under R. 5 (2) of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), inviting objections, within the time specified therein, to the scheme being sanctioned. The objections filed by the appellant Mills, to the sanctioning of the scheme, were overruled by the Collector. On February 10, 1956, the Land Planning Committee, which is the prescribed authority, under the Act, recommended acceptance of the scheme submitted by the Society and for issue of a declaration, by the Government, under S. 6 of the Act. On July 21, 1956, the Government issued the declaration, under S. 6 of the Act, which, again, was published in the State Gazette, on August 9,1956. This declaration was signed by the Deputy Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of West Bengal. On August 28, 1956, notice of the intention to take possession of the lands was issued under R. 8 of the Rules.4. On September 13, 1956, the appellant-Mills filed, in the Calcutta High Court, a writ petition, Civil Rule No. 2620 of 1956, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and prayed for a writ, in the nature of mandamus, to be issued directing the State Government and its officers, not to give effect or take any steps, on the basis of the notice issued. It also prayed for the issue of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the notification, under S. 4, and the declaration, under S. 6, issued by the State Government. Though the appellant raised several grounds of attack, as against the proceedings, leading up to the issue of the notice, under R. 8, the main point that appears to have been urged before the learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petition, was that, having due regard to the scheme of the Act and the materials available, it cannot be said that the Government have sanctioned any scheme, nor can Government be said to have been satisfied, before issuing the declaration under S. 6 of the Act, that the notified lands were needed for a public purpose. In short, the appellants stand appears to have been that proceedings have been initiated by the Assistant Secretary of the Department and orders issued either by him or by the Deputy Secretary and hence actions taken by them, though in the name of the State Government, are not valid, inasmuch as they are not in conformity with the Act. The State Government, on the other hand, contended that there has been due compliance with the provisions of the statute and the proceedings taken by it are legal and valid, as they have been dealt with by officers who have been authorised to act in that behalf.The appellants writ petition was heard, in the first instance, by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The appellant raised, broadly, two contentions. The first contention was that the notification, issued under S. 4, as well as the declaration, made under S. 6 of the Act, and the sanctioning of the scheme for the notified area, were all done by the Assistant Secretary, Land and Revenue Department of the Government of West Bengal and the Government has not in any manner, applied its mind, in these proceedings, and, therefore, the entire proceedings are void. Under this head, the appellant also pleaded that, inasmuch as the executive power of the State is vested in the Governor, under Article 154 (1) of the Constitution, it is the satisfaction of the Governor that is contemplated, under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act. The second contention was that, under the Rules of Business framed by the Governor, under Art. 166(3) of the Constitution, the business pertaining to the Department of Land and Land Revenue, to which these proceedings relate, is to be dealt with personally by the Minister-in-charge; and the proceedings to be taken under the Act cannot be delegated to the departmental officers, by the concerned Minister. In this particular case, inasmuch as the proceedings have been taken, and orders issued, either by the Assistant Secretary or the Deputy Secretary of the Department, without reference to the Minister-in-charge, the entire proceedings are illegal and void. Alternatively, it was also urged that, even if the Minister-in-charge could delegate, any of these functions to the subordinate officers by making appropriate Standing Orders, in, this case there has been no such delegation, authorising the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary to deal with such matters. In this connection, the appellant has relied on items 18, 28 and 29 referred to in Standing Order No. 2, issued by the Minister-in-charge, as indicating that those matters have to be dealt with only by the Minister.On behalf of the State it was urged that, as the notification issued under S. 4 and the declaration made under S. 6, have been authenticated in the manner, specified by the Rules made by the Governor under Art. 166(2) of the Constitution, it was not open to the appellant to go behind and question the validity of either the notification or the declaration, which contained a recital that the Governor was of the opinion that the lands were needed for a public purpose. According to the State, this recital shows that the Governors satisfaction is clearly made out. The respondents also pointed out that the Governor had issued the Rules of Business, under Art. 166 (3) of the Constitution; and under Rr. l9 and 20, therefore, the Minister-in-charge of the particular department, has been clothed with authority, by means of Standing Orders, to give such directions, as he thinks fit, for the disposal of the cases in his department. By virtue of such authority, conferred on the Minister-in-charge of the Department of Land and Land Revenue, in this case, the Minister has made Standing Orders, on November 29, 1951. The respondents further urged that the proceedings taken in this case, by the State Government, under the Act, do not come under any of the items referred to in Standing Order No. 2, which deals with matters which are to be brought to the notice of the Minister, before issue of orders. These matters could be validly dealt with, by the Assistant Secretary of the said Department.The learned Single Judge, after a consideration of the Rules of Business, issued by the Governor, as well as the Standing Orders, made by the Minister-in-charge and the relevant provisions of the Constitution, has held that the contention of the appellant, that it is the Governor who has to be satisfied in such matters, cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the learned Judge has held that, in respect of the matters in question, the relevant business of the Government of the State has been allocated, by the Governor, to the Minister concerned, by issuing Rules of Business. The learned Judge had also held that, under the Rules of Business, the Minister-in-charge has got authority to delegate any particular functions to be disposed of by his subordinates. But, after a consideration of the Standing Orders, made in this case, by the Minister-in-charge, the learned Judge is of the view that the various proceedings, taken by the Government under the Act, will come under Item 18 or 29 of Standing Order No. 2 and, as such, these proceedings should have been referred to the Minister-in-charge, before the issue of orders. It was admitted, by the Advocate-General, before the learned Judge, that none of the proceedings, which are under challenge, either in the matter of sanction or satisfaction, received the attention of the Minister, but was dealt with, either by the Assistant Secretary, or the Deputy Secretary. So the entire proceedings, beginning from the issue of the notification, under S. 4, dated February 4, 1955, and ending with the issue of the notice, dated August 28, 1956, under R. 8 of the Rules, were held to be illegal and void, in consequence, the learned Judge granted the prayers, asked for by the appellant, in his writ petition.This order of the learned Judge was challenged, in two appeals, before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, viz., Appeals from Orders Nos. 397 and 398 of 1958. One appeal was filed by the State, along with respondents 2 and 4, and the other, by the Farmers Society, the 3rd respondent herein. In both the appeals there was a common attack against the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the entire proceedings taken by the Government under the Act. The Division Bench has also held that Art. 166 (2) is only to the effect that, when authentication is made in the manner mentioned therein, what is made conclusive is that the order has been made by the Governor; but, whether in making the order, the Governor has acted in accordance with the law, still remains open to adjudication. The learned Judges have also held that, by virtue of the power conferred under the Rules of Business issued by the Governor, it is open to a Minister, by making proper Standing Orders, to delegate his functions and authorise disposal of such functions to his subordinates. The learned Judges then considered the question as to whether there has been such a delegation in the Standing Orders made on November 29, 1951, regarding the Land Revenue Department. They are not prepared to accept the contention of the appellant that item No. 29 of Standing Order No. 2, applies to these proceedings, necessitating their being dealt with by the Minister himself. The view of the learned Judges is that the said item will relate only to land acquisition, made under the Land Acquisition Act; and, the present proceedings being under the Act, that provision will not apply. The learned Judges are also of the view that the proceedings connected with the issue of a notification under S. 4 of the Act, do not come under item No. 18 of Standing Order No. 2, made by the Minister. But they are of the view that the said item will apply to all proceedings taken by the Government under the Act, after the issue of the notification under S. 4, and, therefore, the Minister-in-charge should have dealt with the matters connected with the sanctioning of the scheme, under S. 5, and the issue of the declaration, under S. 6. But, inasmuch as the Minister has, admittedly, not dealt with those proceedings, at that subsequent stage, the learned Judges held that all orders passed, and notifications issued, subsequent to the stage of the issue of the notification, under S. 4, will have to be set aside as void. In view of the fact that the learned Judges held that the issue of a notification, under S. 4, is not a matter which has to be dealt with by the Minister and, as the exercise of the functions in that regard have been delegated under the Standing Order, that notification was allowed to stand. In consequence, the learned Judges modified the order of the learned Single Judge, to the extent indicated above.

Court's reasoning:
We are also in agreement with the views expressed by the High Court that the Governors personal satisfaction was not necessary in this case as, this is not an item of business, with respect to which, the Governor is, by or under the Constitution, required to act in his discretion. Although the executive Government of a State is vested in the Governor, actually it is carried on by Ministers; and, in this particular case, under Rr. 4 and 5 of the Rules of Business, referred to above, the business of Government is to be transacted in the various departments specified in the First Schedule thereof. Item, 5 therein is the Department of Land and Land Revenue and the Governor has allotted the business of that Department to a Minister. We are further in agreement with the views of the High Court that the said Minister-in-charge, has got power to make Standing Orders regarding the disposal of cases, in his Department, under the Rules of Business issued by the Governor on August 25, 1951, under Article 166 (3) of the Constitution. In this case, there is no controversy that the Minister-in-charge, of the Department of Land and Land Revenue, has made Standing Orders on November 29, 1951, by virtue of powers given to him under Rr. 19 and 20 of the Rules ofdue regard to the Act and the Rules, and the matter dealt with by Item No. 18, we are in agreement with the views expressed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench that item No. 18 of Standing Order No. 2, does not apply to proceedings connected with the issue of a notification, under S. 4 of the Act.To sum up, we are not inclined, to accept the contentions of the appellant, that the issue of a notification, under S.4 of the Act, is a matter which should have been dealt with by the Minister-in-charge himself, on the basis that it is covered by Item 18 of Standing Order No. 2. That item does not as pointed out above, apply. If that is so, it is clear that the issue of a notification, under S. 4 of the Act, and the satisfaction to be arrived at, that the land, in the area in question, is required or is likely to be required for a public purpose, are matters which do not require to be dealt with by the Minister himself. Under Standing Order No.5 the Minister-in charge has authorised the Secretary to permit a Deputy or an Assistant Secretary of the Department, to dispose of certain types of cases and the Secretary has also issued an order, which has been referred to earlier, in conformity with Standing Order No. 5 and it is by virtue of this provision that the notification, under S. 4, was issued by the Assistant Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of West Bengal. We are in entire agreement with the reasons given by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court for upholding the validity of the notification, dated February 4, 1955, issued, under S. 4 of the Act.Before we conclude, we should also make it clear that, in this case no contention was advanced that matters connected with the issue of a notification, under S. 4 of the Act cannot be delegated by the Minister-in-charge and that they have to be dealt with by the Minister himself. We had, therefore no occasion to consider this aspect of the matter. As pointed out above the entire arguments have proceeded on the basis that there has been no such delegation, by the Minister, under the Standing Orders made by him.