Conduct of Business of the Government of a State

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this article, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this article.

1. State of Uttarakhand vs Rajiv Berry

   Supreme Court of India 10 Aug 2016 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When expropriatory legislation like the Land Acquisition Act is involved, while strict construction principles apply, the specific statutory provisions must be interpreted in their operational context. Sections 17(1)-(2) (enabling possession prior to award) and Section 17(4) (enabling dispensation of Section 5A enquiry) operate in independent fields differentiated by degree of urgency. The initial invocation of Section 17(4) followed by its abandonment (allowing land-owners to file objections) does not preclude the State from subsequently relying on Section 17(1) to take possession. Furthermore, the contemporaneous approval by the State Government of the Collector's report and publication of the Section 6 declaration on the same date, supported by detailed multi-tier decision-making records showing reasoned consideration and rejection of objections, does not constitute a fatal procedural defect. Additionally, compensation deposited under Section 17(3A) after (rather than before) taking possession does not invalidate an acquisition if proper notice of handover was given and possession is substantiated by official certificates. The formal issuance of acquisition notifications in the Governor's name under Article 166 is constitutionally compliant even though internal administrative decision-making occurs at departmental secretary level.

   On this article: Requirement that executive actions be expressed to be taken by Governor; Court held that while formal notification must be in Governor's name, internal decision-making by Departmental Secretaries is permissible

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. State of M. P. vs Anand Mohan & ANR

   Supreme Court of India 09 Jul 2015 Binding Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When power to grant sanction for prosecution of public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act has been delegated to the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs through a statutory rule amendment published in the Official Gazette, the Administrative or Departmental authority from which the public servant is removable cannot retain or exercise concurrent power to decline such sanction. The statutory rule amendment prevails over any conflicting executive instruction or circular, and a later clarificatory circular merely explains the scope of already-delegated authority rather than conferring new power. The competence of the sanctioning authority is determined by the legal delegation of power, not by the temporal proximity of the power-delegation to the alleged commission of the offence.

   On this article: Empowers Governor to make orders for conduct of government business and delegate powers. Court noted that Madhya Pradesh Works (Allotment) Rules amendment was made in exercise of these powers.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Jantia Hill Truck Owners Association vs S. A. Coal Dealer & Truck Owner Assn

   Supreme Court of India 10 Jul 2009 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Where a statute confers powers on an authority to do certain acts or exercise power in respect of certain matters subject to rules, the exercise of power conferred by the statute does not depend on the existence of rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same. The expression 'subject to the rules' only means 'in accordance with the rules, if any'. If rules are framed, the powers so conferred could be exercised in accordance with these rules. But if no rules are framed, there is no void and the authority is not precluded from exercising the power conferred by the statute. A statute that is workable even without framing of Rules must be given effect to, as the law does not envisage a vacuum. The State Government is empowered to issue executive orders for matters required to be prescribed by Rules if the statute is workable without them, subject to the condition that such orders do not infringe upon the rights of citizens.

   On this article: Provides for authentication of Governor's orders; cited to establish that Memorandum was properly authenticated

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.