Administrator as constitutional medium, not delegate, supports validity of sales tax notifications issued within statutory authority.

Article 239 places Union Territory administration in the President, who may act through an Administrator to the extent considered fit. Read with Articles 53(1) and 77(3), the constitutional scheme treats the President and subordinate officers as a single executive mechanism, not as principal and delegate. In the statutory setting of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and the General Clauses Act, the Administrator acting within authority is part of that mechanism for issuing notifications. The rate-fixing power under the sales tax law remained within the statutory framework, so the notifications issued through the Administrator were treated as valid and not as an impermissible case of further delegation.

---

---

Issues: Whether an Administrator of a Union Territory appointed under Part VIII of the Constitution acts as a delegate of the President or only as a medium through whom the President acts, and whether the impugned sales tax notifications issued by the Administrator were invalid for want of lawful authority.

Analysis: The power to administer a Union Territory vests in the President under Article 239 of the Constitution of India, and the President may act through an Administrator to such extent as he thinks fit. The constitutional scheme, read with Article 53(1) of the Constitution of India and Article 77(3) of the Constitution of India, shows that the President exercises executive power directly or through subordinate officers, and such officers are limbs or machinery of Government rather than delegates. The same principle applies with greater force to the President acting in relation to a Union Territory. The statutory setting under Sections 4, 88 and 89 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, together with Section 3(8)(b)(iii) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, supports the position that the Central Government, the President, and the Administrator acting within authority are treated as part of the same constitutional mechanism for the relevant notifications. The levy provisions under Section 5(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, vested the rate-fixing power in the State Government, so the executive action taken through the Administrator was within the statutory framework and did not involve any impermissible further delegation.

Conclusion: The Administrator is not a delegate but only a medium or machinery through whom the President acts, and the impugned notifications were validly issued.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Constitution or a valid statutory scheme entrusts executive power to the President and authorises action through an Administrator or other subordinate officer, the officer acts as a constitutional limb of the authority and not as a delegate, so the maxim delegatus non potest delegare is not attracted.

---