Case: A. Sanjeevi Naidu Etc. Etc Vs. State Of Madras And Anr

1. These 51 appellants are private stage carriage operators in the State of Tamil Nadu. They have been operating in various routes in that State. Some of those routes are proposed to be nationalised. A draft scheme of nationalisation has been prepared and published under Section 68 (C) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act IV of 1939) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The validity of the draft scheme was challenged by the appellants before the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution. Incidentally the validity of some of the provisions of the amending Act XVIII of 1968 (Madras Act) also came to be challenged in those petitions. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Anantanarayanan, C. J. and Natesan, J., have dismissed those petitions. As against the decision of the High Court these appeals have been brought on the strength of the certificates issued by the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
4. This section requires that the State Transport Undertaking must form the opinion contemplated therein. In the State of Tamil Nadu, the State Transport Undertaking is a department of the State Government. Therefore the necessary opinion should have been formed by the State Government. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that under our constitutional set up, the requisite opinion could have been formed either by the Council of Ministers or the Minister to whom the business in question had been allocated under the Rules. The same could not have been formed by the Secretary who is merely an official and that too by the Secretary who is not the head of the department to which the functions under the Act had been assigned. The contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants proceed thus: The executive power of the State vests in the Governor (Article 154). In the exercise of that power he has to be aided and advised by the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head (Article 163 (1)) but the Governor can make rules for more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under the Constitution required to act in his discretion, (Article 166 (3)). A Minister can only deal with the business that has been allocated to him by the Governor under the Rules. He is not competent to deal with any other business. Motor Vehicles Act has been allocated to the Home Department. Mr. Karunanidhi, the Transport Minister was notof the Home Department. Therefore his department could not have dealt with functions arising under the Act. Further the Governor could not have allocated any business to a Secretary. Hence in making Rule 23 (A), the governor exceeded the powers conferred on him under Article 166 (3).The impugned Rule 23 (A) was introduced for the first time by G. O. Ms. No. 2715 Public datedse (1) of that rule, it is provided that powers and functions which State Transport Undertaking may exercise under Section 68 (C) of the Act shall be exercised and discharged on behalf of the State Government by the Secretary to the Government of Madras in the Industries, Labour and Housing Department. The rule further provides that cases relating to such powers and functions of the State Transport Undertaking under Section 68 (C) need not be submitted to the Ministerse (2) of that rule, the powers and functions of the State Government under Section 68 (D) of the Act and the rules relating thereto are directed to be exercised and discharged by the Secretary to the Government in the Homeis true that when the various departments were reorganized in 1961, Motor Vehicles Act as well as Transport were included in the Home Department. But when the D. M. K. Ministry came to power after the 1967 general elections, the Home Department as such was not allocated to any Minister. The various subjects included in that department were distributed amongst several Ministers. Transport was allocated to the Transport Minister. Motor Vehicles Act as such was not allocated to any Minister. The allocation of business among the various Ministers appears to have been made under broad heads. In 1961 while allocating subjects to the various departments there was a detailed and exhaustive enumeration of the subjects.But that method was not adopted in 1967 while distributing the business of the Government among the various Ministers. The functions under the Act undoubtedly relate to Transport department. It cannot be assumed that functions under the Act had not been assigned to any Minister. It is proved that those functions were being discharged by the Minister for Transport. Hence we agree with the High Court that those functions had been allocated to the Transport Minister and that the State Transport Undertaking was being run by the Transport Ministry.9. Mr. Karunanidhi has in his affidavit filed before the High Court sworn to the fact that Rule 23 (A) was framed at his instance. Admittedly he could have assigned the functions under Section 68 (C) of the Act to the Transport Secretary by making a standing order under Rule 22. If he could have done that, we fail to see why he could not advise the Governor through the Chief Minister to make Rule 23power can be exercised only by that authority and by no one else. The authority concerned in the present case is the State Government. The Government could not have delegated its statutory functions to any one else. The Government means the Governor aided and advised by his Ministers. Therefore the required opinion should have been formed by the Minister to whom the business had been allocated by the Rules. It was further urged that if the functions of the Government can be discharged by any one else then the doctrine of ministerial responsibility which is the very essence of the cabinet form of Government disappears; such a situation is impermissible under our Constitution.11. We think that the above submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants are without force and are based on a misconception of the principles underlying our Constitution. Under our Constitution, the Governor is essentially a constitutional head, the administration of State is run by the Council of Ministers. But in the very nature of things, it is impossible for the Council of Ministers to deal with each and every matter that comes before the Government. In order to obviate that difficulty the Constitution has authorised the Governor under(3) of Article 166 to make rules for the more convenient transaction of business of the Government of the State and for the allocation amongst its Ministers, the business of the Government. All matters excepting those in which Governor is required to act in his discretion have to be allocated to one or the other of the Ministers on the advice of the Chief Minister. Apart from allocating business among the Ministers, the Governor can also make rules on the advice of his Council of Ministers for more convenient transaction of business. He can, not only allocate the various subjects amongst the Ministers but may go further and designate a particular official to discharge any particular function. But this again he can do only on the advice of the Council of Ministers.12. The cabinet is responsible to the legislature for every action taken in any of the ministries. That is the essence of joint responsibility. That does not mean that each and every decision must be taken by the cabinet.The political responsibility of the Council of Ministers does not and cannot predicate the personal responsibility of the Ministers to discharge all or any of the governmental functions. Similarly an individual Minister is responsible to the legislature for every action taken or omitted to be taken in his ministry. This again is a political responsibility and not personal responsibility. Even the mostMinister cannot attend to every business in his department. If he attempts to do it, he is bound to make a mess of his department. In everyadministration, most of the decisions are taken by the civil servants who are likely to be experts and not subject to political pressure. The Minister is not expected to burden himself with the day to day administration.His primary function is to lay down the policies and programmes of his ministry while the Council of Ministers settle the major policies and programmes of the Government. When a civil servant takes a decision, he does not do it as delegate of his Minister. He does it on behalf of the Government. It is always open to a Minister to call for any file in his ministry and pass orders. He may also issue directions to the officers in his ministry regarding the disposal of Government business either generally or as regards any specific case. Subject to that over all power, the officers designated by the Rules or the standing orders, can take decisions on behalf of the Government. These officers are the limbs of the Government and not its delegates.13. In Emperor v. Sibnath Banerji, 72 Ind App 241 = (AIR 1945 PC 156  ), construing Section 59 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, a provision similar to Article 166 (3), the Judicial Committee held that it was within the competence of the Governor to empower a civil servant to transact any particular business of the Government by making appropriate rules. In that case their Lordships further observed that the Ministers like civil servants are subordinates to the Governor.In Ishwarlal Girdharlal Joshi v. State of Gujarat,SCR 266 = (AIR 1968 SC 870  ) this Court rejected the contention that the opinion formed by the Deputy Secretary under Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be considered as the opinion of the State Government.. Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh, C. A. No. 2201 of 1966, D/(reported in AIR 1967 SC 1815  ), this Court dealing with the scope of Section 68 (D) of the Act observed that the State Government obviously is not a natural person and therefore some natural person has no give hearing on behalf of the State Government and hence the hearing given by the Special Secretary pursuant to the power conferred on him by the business rules framed under Article 166 (3) is a valid hearing.18.As mentioned earlier in the very nature of things, neither the Council of Ministers nor an individual Minister can attend to the numerous matters that come up before the Government. Those matters have to be attended to and decisions taken by various officials at various levels. When those officials discharge the functions allotted to them, they are doing so as limbs of the Government and not as persons to whom the power of the Government had beenthe reasons mentioned above, we are of opinion that the functions under the Motor Vehicles Act had been allocated by the Governor to the Transport Minister under "the Rules" and the Secretary of that ministry had been validly authorised under Ruleto take action under Section 68 (C) of the Act.21. The validity of some of the provisions of Madras Act 18 of 1968 which amended the Act was canvassed before us. It is not necessary to go into those questions for deciding the validity of the impugned scheme. Those questions can be more appropriately gone into and decided if and when action is taken on the strength of those provisions. Hence we leave open those questions.