Delegated executive notification valid where business rules permit officer action and no personal ministerial satisfaction is required

An authenticated executive notification is not invalid merely because it was processed and issued by an authorised departmental officer, where the Rules of Business and valid standing orders permit such delegation and the statute does not require personal ministerial or gubernatorial satisfaction at that stage. Article 166(2) conclusively establishes that the order is one made by the Governor, but it does not bar challenge to the legality of the underlying decision. In the Section 4 context of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, no statutory duty required personal consideration by the Minister-in-charge or consultation with the Land Planning Committee before the notification issued, so the challenge to validity failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification issued under Section 4 of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 was invalid because it was not personally dealt with by the Minister-in-charge and whether the satisfaction required for the notification had to be that of the Governor personally.

Analysis: Article 166(2) makes authentication of executive orders in the prescribed form conclusive only as to the fact that the order is made by the Governor, while the legality of the decision taken under the order remains open to challenge. Article 166(3) permits the Governor to make Rules of Business, and under those rules the Minister-in-charge may issue standing orders authorising subordinate officers to deal with departmental matters. On the scheme of the Act, the stage of notification under Section 4 is prior to the statutory role of the prescribed authority in preparing and submitting a development scheme under Section 5 and the declaration under Section 6. The relevant standing order did not require the notification stage to be placed before the Minister, and the Land Planning Committee had no statutory duty to be consulted before issuance of the Section 4 notification. The notification was therefore within the authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary and was not vitiated for want of personal ministerial consideration.

Conclusion: The notification under Section 4 was valid, and the challenge to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An authenticated executive order is not invalid merely because it was issued through an authorised departmental officer, where the Rules of Business and standing orders validly permit such delegation and the statute does not require personal ministerial or gubernatorial satisfaction at that stage.

---