Raj Narain Singh v Chairman, Patna Administration Committee

Facts

A provision of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922 allowed government to extend to a particular area any section of the Act subject to such restrictions and modifications as it thought fit. Acting under it, the government in 1951 picked out one section relating to the levy of taxes, modified it, and applied it to Patna town. The effect was to impose a tax on the inhabitants without affording them the opportunity to be heard and file objections that the Act's scheme otherwise contemplated.

Issues

• Whether power to select and extend a single section of a statute to a new area, with modifications, is valid delegation.
• Whether the modification effected, which removed the right of hearing before imposing tax, exceeded permissible limits by changing the policy of the Act.

Arguments

The municipal authority contended the extension was within the express power to apply sections with restrictions and modifications. The challengers contended the executive had effected a radical change in the Act's policy by imposing tax without the hearing the statute guaranteed, which is an essential legislative function that cannot be delegated.

Held

The Supreme Court declared the exercise of power ultra vires. Picking out a section and modifying it so as to deny the inhabitants the hearing the Act intended amounted to changing the policy of the Act, which is an essential legislative function and cannot be delegated. The Court treated this as a case where the power conferred may have been valid but the manner in which it was exercised was invalid, because the modification crossed beyond local adjustment into alteration of policy.

Ratio decidendi

Delegated power of extension and modification may be used only for local adjustments not amounting to a change of legislative policy; where its exercise alters the essential policy of the parent Act it is excessive delegation and void.

Significance

A leading post-Delhi Laws application clarifying the limits of the modification power; it distinguishes valid conferment from invalid exercise and reinforces that altering statutory policy through delegated modification is impermissible. Read alongside In re Delhi Laws Act and contrasted with Jalan Trading Co. v Mill Mazdoor Union (AIR 1967 SC 691) and Gammon India Ltd. v Union of India (AIR 1974 SC 960).

Related