Rules of business and statutory opinion: authorised departmental Secretary could validly act for the State Government.

Under Article 166(3) of the Constitution, the Governor may frame rules for convenient transaction of State business and allocate departmental functions accordingly. In the context of section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the opinion required for a draft nationalisation scheme could validly be formed by the departmental Secretary where the transport business had been allotted to the Transport Minister and the Secretary was authorised under the business rules. Such action by a duly authorised official is treated in law as the act of the Government. The rules of business were therefore valid, the Secretary's opinion was legally sufficient, and the challenge to the draft scheme failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the opinion required under section 68(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for preparation of a draft nationalisation scheme could validly be formed by the Secretary of the concerned department under rule 23-A of the Madras Government Business Rules, and whether such rule was within the power conferred by Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The opinion contemplated by section 68(C) had to be that of the State transport undertaking, but in the constitutional scheme the State acts through its Ministers and authorised officials under rules made for the more convenient transaction of business. Article 166(3) permits the Governor to frame such rules and to allocate business among Ministers, and the evidence showed that transport business under the Act had in fact been allotted to the Transport Minister. Rule 23-A merely authorised the Secretary of the department to act on behalf of the Government in relation to section 68(C), consistent with the rules of business and with the established principle that decisions taken by duly authorised officials are, in law, decisions of the Government. The Court also noted that similar business-rule arrangements had previously been upheld in relation to statutory opinions and hearings.

Conclusion: The rule was valid and the opinion formed through the Secretary was legally sufficient under section 68(C). The challenge to the draft scheme failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were unsuccessful because the impugned scheme was upheld on the footing that the authorised departmental secretary could validly act for the State Government under the rules of business.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India, a duly authorised official acting under valid rules of business may validly perform a statutory function or form a statutory opinion on behalf of the State Government, and such act is treated in law as the act of Government.

---