Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

49. The modern phenomenon in administrative process is an emergence of the institution of directions. Directions are less formal than rules. Administrative authorities issue directions for a variety of purposes and in a variety of ways, for example, through letters, circulars, instructions, orders, memoranda, directives, bulletins, guidelines, manuals, pamphlets, public notices, press notes, clarifications, etc. Directions may be specific being applicable to a specific person or matter or may be general in nature laying down some general norm or principle or policy, practice or procedure to be followed in all similar cases. The directions are part and parcel of the internal administrative procedure of a Government department. Directions are issued under the Government's administrative and not legislative power. Articles 73(1) and 162 confer administrative power on the Central and the State Government respectively. For example, Article 73(1) says that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of the Union extends to matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws. Similarly, under Article 162, the executive power of the State extends to matters with respect to which a State Legislature has power to make laws. The administrative power of a Government is thus co­extensive with its legislative power.

"6. The first point raised by Mr.Pathak, in substance, amounts to this, that the Government has no power in law to carry on the business of printing or selling text books for the use of school students in competition with private agencies without the sanction of the legislature. It is not argued that the functions of a modern State like the police States of old are confined to mere collection of taxes or maintenance of laws and protection of the realm from external or internal enemies. A modern State is certainly expected to engage in all activities necessary for the promotion of the social and economic welfare of the community. What Mr.Pathak says, however, is, that as our Constitution clearly recognises a division of governmental functions into three categories, viz., the legislative, the judicial and the executive, the function of the executive cannot but be to execute the laws passed by the legislature or to supervise the enforcement of the same. The legislature must first enact a measure which the executive can then carry out. The learned counsel has, in support of this contention, placed considerable reliance upon Articles 73 and 162 of our Constitution and also upon certain decided authorities of the Australian High Court to which we shall presently refer.

7. Article 73 of the Constitution relates to the executive powers of the Union, while the corresponding provision in regard to the executive powers of a State is contained in Article 162. The provisions of these Articles are analogous to those of section 8 and 49 respectively of the Government of India Act, 1935 and lay down the rule of distribution of executive powers between the Union and the States, following the same analogy as is provided in regard to the distribution of legislative powers between them. Article 162, with which we are directly concerned in this case, lays down :

8. Thus under this Article the executive authority of the State is executive in respect to matters enumerated in List II of Seventh Schedule. The authority also extends to the Concurrent List except as provided in the Constitution itself or in any law passed by the Parliament. Similarly, Article 73 provides that the executive powers of the Union shall extend to matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws and to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or any agreement. The proviso engrafted on clause (1) further lays down that although with regard to the matters in the Concurrent List the executive authority shall be ordinarily left to be State it would be open to the Parliament to provide that in exceptional cases the executive power of the Union shall extend to these matters also. Neither of these Articles contain any definition as to what the executive function is and what activities would legitimately come within its scope. They are concerned primarily with the distribution of the executive power between the Union on the one hand and the States on the other. They do not mean, as Mr.Pathak seems to suggest, that it is only when the Parliament or the State Legislature has legislated on certain items appertaining to their respective lists, that the Union or the State executive, as the case may be, can proceed to function in respect to them. On the other hand, the language of Article 162 clearly indicates that the powers of the State executive do extend to matters upon which the state Legislature is competent to legislate and are not confined to matters over which legislation has been passed already. The same principle underlies Article 73 of the Constitution. These provisions of the Constitution therefore do not lend any support to Mr.Pathak's contention.