Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.25 seconds)Article 74 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shri Raghunandan Panda vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 19 November, 1974
17. Whenever the Constitution requires the satisfaction of the President for exercising any administrative power or functions, it is not his personal satisfaction, but in the constitutional sense, the satisfaction of his council of ministers on whose aid and advice Presidents opinion, satisfaction or decision is constitutionally secured when his ministers arrive at such opinion, satisfaction or decision. It has also to be seen that whether the validity of executive action depends upon prior legislation [H.C. Mehta versus Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118] and where, the Constitution does not require legislation, and there is no contrary law in force on the subject matter, it is open to the Executives to issue administrative orders or instructions and even to confer rights and duties [Raghunandan versus State of Orissa (1975) 1 SCC 106].
Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004
18. It has been further held in Union of India versus Naveen Jindal [AIR 2004 (SC) 1559] that executive instructions are not law under Article 13 through such instructions might have the force of law for some other purposes, as for example those instructions which are issued as a supplement to legislative power under Article 77(1) of the Constitution.
Life Insurance Corporation Of India And ... vs Kalangi Samuel Prabhakar And Ors. M. ... on 2 May, 1997
19. It has been further held in Chairman of L.I.C. of India versus Kalangi Samuel Prabakar [AIR 1997 (AP) 304] that the executive circulars, directions, instructions and regulations are issued under appropriate laws: and below statutory rules. They are not policy decisions, but means of implementation of predetermined policies. In H.C. Mehtas case (Supra) the Honble Supreme Court further made it clear that a statutory notification cannot be notified by issue of a circular.
Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
20. The aforesaid views have been further fortified by the Honble Supreme Court in a series of cases Nagendra versus Commissioner [AIR 1958 (SC) 398(413)];Sant Ram versus State of Rajasthan [AIR 1967 (SC) 1910] and Union of India versus Joseph [AIR 1973 (SC) 303], to mention a few.
Sant Ram Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 7 August, 1967
20. The aforesaid views have been further fortified by the Honble Supreme Court in a series of cases Nagendra versus Commissioner [AIR 1958 (SC) 398(413)];Sant Ram versus State of Rajasthan [AIR 1967 (SC) 1910] and Union of India versus Joseph [AIR 1973 (SC) 303], to mention a few.
S.R. Bommai And Others Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Others Etc. Etc. on 11 March, 1994
In SR Bommai vs Union of India 1994(3) SCC 1 the Honble Supreme Court holds that Articles 74 and 77 are complementary to each other, though they operate in different fields. Article 74(1) deals with acts of the President done in exercise of his functions whereas Article 77 speaks of the executive action of the Government of India which is taken in the name of the Government of India. In so far as the executive action of the Government of India is concerned it has to be taken by the Minister/officer to whom the business is allocated by the rule of business made under clause (3) of Article 77 for more convenient transaction of the Government of India. All orders issued and the instrument executed relatable to the executive action of the Government of India have to be authenticated in the manner and the officer empowered in that behalf. The President does not relay come to the picture in so far as Article 77 is concerned. All business of the Government of India is transacted by the Minister or other officer empowered in that behalf, of course, in the name of the President. Orders are issued, instruments are executed and other acts done by various Ministries and officers, none of which reach the President or be placed before him for consideration. There is no occasion for such cases being for any aid or advice being considered to the President by the Council of Ministers. Though expressed in the name of the President they are the acts of the Government of India.
Bejoy Lakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 18 January, 1967
40. The Rules of Business in the Bejoy Lakshmi Cotton Mills case (1967) 2 SCR 406 = (AIR 1967 SC 1145) (supra) indicated that the business of the Government was to be transacted in various departments specified in the Schedules. Land and Land Revenue was allocated as the business of the Department of the Minister with that portfolio. The Minister-in-charge had power to make standing order regarding disposal of cases. This Court held that the decision of any Minister or officer under Rules of Business is a decision of the President or the Governor respectively. The Governor means, the Governor aided and advised by the Ministers. Neither Article 77 (3) nor Article 166 (3) provides for any delegation of power. Although the executive power of the State is vested in the Governor actually it is carried on by Ministers under Rules of Business made under Article 166 (3). The allocation of business of the Government is the decision of the President or the Governor on the aid and advice of Ministers.
Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan vs F.N. Rana And Anr. on 5 December, 1963
41. This Court in Jayantilal Amritlal Shodhan v. F. N. Rana, (1964) 5 SCR 294 = (AIR 1964 SC 648) considered the validity of a notification issued by the President under Article 258 (1) of the Constitution entrusting with the consent of the Government of Bombay to the Commissioners of Divisions in the State of Bombay the functions of the Central Government under the Land Acquisition Act in relation to the acquisition of land for the purposes of the Union within the Territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioners. The notification issued by the President was dated 24 July, 1959. The Commissioner of Baroda Division, State of Gujarat by notification published on 1 September, 1960, exercising functions under the notification issued by the President notified under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act that certain land belonging to the appellant was needed for a public purpose. On 1 May, 1960 under the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 two States were carved out, viz., Maharashtra and Gujarat. The appellant contended that the notification issued by the President under Article 258 (1) was ineffective without the consent of the Government of the newly formed State of Gujarat.