GULABRAO KESHAVARAO PATIL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

            GULABRAO KESHAVARAO PATIL AND ORS.                                       A
                            v.
                    STATE OF GUJARAT


                             DECEMBER 1, 1995
                                                                                     B
                [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

         Constitution of India-Articles 166(1) and (2}-Land Acquisition Act
  1894-Section 5A(l) and (2), 4(1), (6)-Ru/es of business-Ru/es 15, 33, 12,
  13, Instmctions 4, 9, JO, Part II-Land acquisition-Notification under section      c
  4(l) published-Objections of claimants submitted-Enquiry of Land Ac-
  quisition Officer .conducted and report submitted to State Govern-
  ment-Revenue Department, referring to objections and to revenue circular,
  deciding that acquisition proceedings cannot be sanctioned-Ministry of
  Urban Development disagreeing with Ministry of Revenue-Dispute referred            D
  to Chief Ministe,-Meanwhile, .'l.evenue Depwtment communicating decision
  to LAO for appropriate action -whether decision of Revenue Department
  fmal w1d constitutes decision of appropriate government-Held, before an
  order or action can bind governmen~ it must be drawn in the name of Gover-
. nor as envisaged in Article 166 read with the Rules of Business and must be
  communicated to affected perso1i-Held, fwther, Rules of Business entitles          E
  two depllltments to deal with land acquisition and valuation-lnstmctions,
  which are integral part of Rules of Business and have constitutional force to
  supplement rules, require that when two Ministers .are not in agreement, subject
  should be submitted to Chief Minister for decision after placing it before
  Council or Cabine1'-No decision having been so taken, held, no decision was        F
  taken to proceed further under Section 6 or to drop acquisition proceed-
  ings-Articles 163, 164, 167-Town Planning Act, Section 78.

        Constitution of India-Articles 164, 166, 167, 163-lmplied power of
 Chief Minister vis-a-vis subject allotted to Ministei-Held, responsibility to the
 Governor and accountability to people collectively by Council of Ministers is       G
 through and by the Chief Ministei-£Jecision of Minister under Rules of
 Business not final or conclusive until requirements under Article 166 are
 complied witli-Held, further, Chief Minister has implied power to examine
 w1d take any decision or action though the subject allotted to a Ministe,-Co/-
 /ective Responsibility-C/1ief Ministei--1?.ules of Business.                        H
                                         97
    98                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A       Proceedings for acquisition of land for relieving parting and traffic
  congestion near Surat railway station were initiated in 1992. Notice under
  Section SA was issued, and the appellants objected to the acquisition. The
  Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) conducted enquiry under Section SA(l)
  and submitted the report to the government for appropriate decision. A
  dispute thereafter arose between the Revenue Department and the Urban
B Development Department. The Section Officer of the Revenue Department,
  wrote that, taking into consideration the objection submitted by the ac-
  count:holder and considering the legal position, as also a revenue circular,
  notification under Section 6 could not be sanctioned. The Ministry of
  Urban Development disagreed. Consequently, the Chief Minister was
C moved to re-examine the issue. The Section Officer of the Revenue Depart-
  ment, however, communicated its decision to the LAO for further action.
  No action having been taken in that behalf, the appellants approached the
  High Court under Article 226. The High Court held that the government
  had not taken a decision under Section SA (2) and dismissed the petition.
D         The question for consideration before this Court was whether the
    appropriate government could be held to have taken a decision on the
    objections raised by the claimants.

          It was contended for the appellants that under Role lS of the
E   Business Rules, the competent authority to take the decision for acquisi-
    tion of land is the Department of Revenue, and the Minister for Revenue
    having approved the proposal sent up by the Revenue Department not to
    take further action under Section 4(1), the government has taken a
    decision under its Business Rules not to proceed with the acquisition.

F          For the government it was contended that the Urban Development
     Department had taken a decision that the land was needed for the stated
     public purpose, and acquisition was necessary. The decision of the
     Revenue Department, it was urged, was not final, and in the conflict
     between two departments, the matter required to be referred to the Chief
G    Minister, and it required the consideration of the Cabinet. Therefore, there
     was no decision taken by government.

           Dismissing the petition, this Court

           HELD: l. Before an order or action can bind the government it must
H    be drawn in the name of the Governor as envisaged in Article 166(1) and
                          G.K PATIL v. STATE                              99

(2) read with the Business Roles and must be communicated to the affected       A
person. Until then, the action of the government is not final. Before it is
duly done, Chief Minister has power to call for any file and would have it
re-examined and decision taken. (109-A-B]

      2. According to the allotment of subjects under the Business Rules,
                                                                                B
both the Urban Department and Urban Housing Department as well as
the Revenue Department are entitled to deal with land acquisition and
valuation thereof. In this case, the decision of the Revenue Minister is not
final because the Urban Development Department did not accept or agree
to the decision taken by the Minister of Revenue. When the matter was
brought by the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing Department             C
to the notice of the Chief Minister, the Chief Minister, in light of instruc-
tion 10, should place the decision necessarily before the Council or the
Cabinet, as the case may be, and then may be decided by the Chief minister.
It is seen that no decision has been taken by the Chief Minister under
instruction 10. Therefore, under Section 5A(2), no decision was taken to        D
proceed further under Section 6 or to drop the acquisition proceedings.
                                                                  (109-C-D]

      3. Rule 15 of the Business Rules provides that these rules may be
supplemented by instructions to be issued by the Governor on the advice
of the Chief Minister. The instructio'1s are integral part of the scheme of     E
the Business Rules and have constitutional flavour and force to supple-
ment the rules. Instruction 10 provides that where, more than one depart-
ment is concerned with the subject, and the departments c~ncerned are
not in agreement, the Minister-in-charge of the department may dfrect.t!iat
the case be submitted to the Chief Minister for orders for lying the case       p
before the Council or the Cabinet. (105-B, 106-G]

      4. The responsibility of Council of Ministers under Article 164(2) of
the Constitution embobies the political responsibility of the Minister
headed by the Chief Minister. The responsibility to the Governor and
accountability to the people collectively by the Council of Ministers Js        G
through and by the Chief Minister. It would, therefore, be clear that the
decision ~fa Minister under the Business Rules is not final or conclusive
until the requirements in terms of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 166 are
complied with. Before the action or the decision is expressed in the name
of the Governor in the manner prescribed under the Business Rules and           H
    100                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   communicated to the party concerned it would always be open by necessary
    implication, to be Chief Minister to send for the file and have it examined
    by himself and to take a decision, though the snbject was allotted to a
    particular Minister for convenient transaction of the business of the
    government. The subject, though exclusively allotted to the Minister, by
B   reason of the responsibility of the Chief Minister to the Governor and
    accountability to the people, has implied power to call for the file relating
    to a decision taken by a Minister. The object of allotment of the subject to
    a Minister is for the convenient transaction of the business at various
    levels through designated officers. The ultimate object is to secure an
    impartial, pure and efficient administration. [106-H, 107-A-E]
c
         Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, [1962] Supp 3 SCR 713, State of
    Kamataka v. Union of India, AIR (1978) SC 68, Kedar Nath Balli v. State of
    Punjab, AIR (1979) SC 220; State of Kera/a v. A. Lakshmikutty, AIR (1987)
    SC 331 and Speech of Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly vide
D   Constituent Assembly Debates vol. VIII, P. 546, relied on.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11616 of
    1995.

            From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.94, 8.12.94, 9.12.94 &
E 12.12.94 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No. 7890 of 1994.
          Dipankar Gupta, Solicitor General R.F. Nariman, P.S. Poti, H.N.
    Salve, Ms. Manisha Pradeep, K. S. Nanavati P. H. Parekh, Prashant Desa~
    S.B. Naik, S.C. Patel, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi and P.G. Desai for the
    appearing parties.
F
            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Leave granted.

         Having heard the counsel on both sides and given our anxious
G   consideration to the respective contentions, we propose to dispose of the
    matter on merits. The only question is whether the appropriate Govern·
    ment under Section (2) of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of
    1894 (for short, 'the Act') has decided the objections raised by the
    claimants for further action under Section 6 of the Act. The Standing
H   Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation, authorised by its resolu-
                          G.K. PATIL v. STATE                          101

lion dated February 27, 1992, the Municipal Commissioner to take ap- A
propriate action to acquire the land in question for relieving parking and
traffic congestion near Surat railway station. On July 31, 1992 permission
was granted by the Town Planning Department to the Corporation to
acquire the land in question under Section 78 of the Town Planning Act.
A declaration in that behalf was made. Accordingly on October 29, 1992,
                                                                              B
the Collector ha_d published the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.
It is stated in the declared that "the District Collector of Surat feels that
the lands shown in the attached list may be required for the road and
parking for the purpose of public at large by Surat Municipal Corporation".
Thereafte~, notice under Section 5-A was issued and the appellant had
objected to the acquisition in his objections dated 4.1.1993 and 23.2.1993. C
Later the Land Acquisition Officer duly conducted the enquiry under
Section 5A(l) and submitted the report to the Government for appropriate
decision in that behalf. Here the dispute arises as to whether the decision
has been taken by the State Government to proceed with the acquisition
or to stop further action in that behalf. It is seen that the Revenue D
Department of the State Government had decided, as reflected in the letter
dated 12.7.1993 written by the Section Officer of the Revenue Department
that "taking into consideration the objection submitted by the ·account
holder and that taking into consideration the legal position and also the
revenue circular dated 20.6.1970, notification under Section 6 cannot be
sanctioned. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer was requested to do E
the necessary proceedings accordingly". The Ministry of Urban Develop-
ment did not agree with the view of the Ministry of Revenue. Consequen- ·
tially, they moved the Chief Minister to have the issue re-examined.
However, before a decision was taken, the Section Officer of the Revenue
Department Communicated its decision to the Land Acquisition Officer to F
take further action as indicated above. Since action was not being taken in
that behalf, the appellants have approached the High Court for necessary
directions under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the impugned order
dated 7.12.1994, made in Special Civil Application No. 7890/94, the High
Court has held that the Government had not taken the decision under
sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition was G
rejected. Thus this appeal by special leave.

      Shri Barish Salve, the learned senior counsel for the appellant,
contended that in view of the communication sent by the Section Officer,
referred to hereinbefore, read with the affidavit filed by the Additional H
    102                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A Chief Secretary of the Revenue Department which says that "I say that
    noting made by me in the file that "(1) may be submitted to Government
    (II) legal position being what it is, it will serve no useful purpose in
    discussing the issue in formal meeting with Urban Development Depart-
    ment (UDD)" is in agreement to the noting of Shri Shamji Patel, the then
    Dy. Secretary, Revenue Department as aforesaid." The Minister for
B   Revenue had approved the proposal sent up by the Revenue Department
    on July 6, 1993 not to take further action under Section 4(1). Therefore,
    the citizen is made to believe that the Government have taken a decision
    under its business rules not to proceed with the acquisition. The High
    Court, therefore, was not right in its conclusion that the decision was not
C   taken. The High Court has noted in the judgment that it had perused the
    note file regarding the decision taken by the Revenue Minister but none-
    theless concluded that it is not a final decision. When the matter came up
    before this Court on November 2, 1995, this Court after hearing the counsel
    on either side directed the Government to produce the business rules
D   under which the competent authority required to take a decision so that
    we can proceed on the legal premise whether Section Officer's letter
    founded on legal premises. Today, the learned counsel has placed before
    us the business rules.

         Shri Salve contended that under Rule 15 of the Business Rules, the
E competent authority to take the decision for acquisition of the land is the
  Department of Revenue. The decision having been taken by the Revenue
  Department and having been communicated, as referred to earlier, there
  is a final decision taken by the Government under its Business Rules and
  that, therefore, no further action could be take'l, pursuant to notification
F under Section 4(1) of the Act. On the other hand, Shri Poti, the learned
  senior counsel for the Government, contended that the Urban Develop-
  ment Department had taken decision that the land needed for the above
  public purpose and acquisition is necessary. The decision taken by the
  Revenue Department not to proceed with the acquisition is not final. Due
  to conflict of decisions between the two departments of the Government,
G the matter required to be referred to the Chief Minister. The Law Ministry
  has advised that the view of the Revenue Department does not bind the
  Chief Minister. The matter required the consideration by the Cabinet in
  this behalf which has yet to take the decision. Therefore, there is no
   decision taken by the Government. Shri D.P. Gupta, learned Solicitor
H General for Corporation, supported the contention of Shri Poli in this
                           G.K. PATIL v. STATE                           103

 behalf. The question, therefore, is whether the Government of Gujarat has A
 taken decision on the objections raised by the appellants for the acquisition
 of the lands in question.

        Jn R.K Jain v. Union of India, [1983] 4 SCC 119 at page 147, this
  Court held that the Cabinet known as Council of Ministers is the driving B
  and steering body responsible for the governance of the country. the
  executive function comprises of both, the determination of the policy as
  well as carrying it into execution. The administration of the affairs of the
  State including all trading activities, the acquisition, holding and disposal
  of property and the making of contracts for any purpose. The primary
  function of the Cabinet is to formulate the policies of the Government in C
  conformity with the directive principles of the Constitution for the gover-
  nance of the nation. Have it accepted by the·legislature and carry the
  executive function of the State as per the Constitution and the laws. The
  Cabinet bear collective responsibility. At page 148 in paragraph 33, it was
  further held that the Cabinet, as a whole, is collectively responsible for the D
  advice tendered to the President and for the conduct of business of each
  department. Jn S.R. Bommai & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1994] 3 SCC
. 1 in paragraph 226 at page 192-193, it was held that the Council of
  Ministers are collectively responsible to the Parliament and accountable to
  the people.
                                                                               E
       Under Article 163, the Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister
at the head is to aid and advice the Governor in the exercise of his
functions, except in so far as he is by or under the Constitution required
to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion. The Chief
Minister should be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers are F
appointed on his advice by the Governor. The Council of Ministers under
Article 164 shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of .
the State. Under Article 167, the Chief Minister shall hold the duty to
communicate to the Governor all decisions of the Council of Ministers
relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for
legislation etc. It Would, thus, be clear that the Chief Minister holds the G
ultimate responsibility to the Governor and accountable to the people of
the State for the good governance of the State with the assistance of his
Council ·of Ministers. The executive power of the State is carried on by the
Government with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, Chief
Minister being the head. In other words, the Cabiflet transacts the business H
    104                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A of the State and it is discharges by its Chief Minister to whom business of
    the State on specified subjects are allocated for convenient transaction of
    the business of the Government.

          Article 166(1) and (2) of the Constitution state thus :

B            "166. Conduct of business of the Government of a State - (1) All
             executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed
             to be taken in the name of the Governor.

             (2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name
             of the Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be
c            specified in rules to be made by the Governor, and the validity of
             an order of instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called
             in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument
             made or executed by the Governor."

D In other words, Article 166(1) and (2) expressly envisage authentication of
  all the executive actions and shall be expressed to be taken in the name of
  the Governor and shall be authenticated in such manner specified in the
  rules made by the Governor. Under Article 166(3), the Governor is
  authorised to make the rules for the more convenient transaction of the
  business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among
E Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to
  which the Governor is by or under the Constitution required to act in his
  discretion. In other words, except in cases when the Government in his
  individual discretion exercises his constitutional functions, the other busi-
  ness of the Government required to be conveniently transacted as per the
p Business Rules made by Article 166(3) of the Constitution. If the action of
  the Government and the order is duly authenticated as per Article 166(2)
  and the Business Rule 12, it is conclusive and irrebuttable presumption
  arises that decision was duly taken according to Rules. The letter of the
  Section Officer is not in conformity with Rule 12 and Article 166(1) and
  (2), though under rule 13 he is one of the authorised officer to communi-
G cate the decision of the Government. In Major E.G. Barsay v. State of
  Bombay, AlR (1961) SC 1762, this Court held that if an order is issued in
  the name of the President and is duly authenticated in the manner
   prescribed in Article 77(2), there is an irrebuttable presumption that the
   order is made by the president. Whereby the order does not comply with
H the provisions of Article 77(2), it is open to the party to question the
                          G.K. PATIL v. STATE                            105

validity of the order on the ground that it was not an order made by the        A
President and to prove that it was not made by the Central Government.
Where the evidence establishes that the Dy. Secretary on behalf of the
Central Government made the order as a delegate, the order cannot be
questioned. Therefore, it is necessary to show whether decision of the
Government is according to Business Rules.
                                                                                B
      Rule 15 of the Business Rules provides that these rules may, to such
extent as may be necessary, be supplemented by instructions to be issued
by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. Under the Business
Rules 33 subjects were allotted to the Revenue Department of which item
15 relates to acquisition of property, principles on which compensation for     C
property acquired for the purpose of the State or for any other public
purposes is to be determined and the form and manner in which such
compensation is to be 'given'; acquisition of Immovable property for
defence purpose etc.

      The Urban Development and Urban Hqusing Department gets al-               D
lotted 18 items of which item 8 contemplates of Town Planning Scheme
and 9 contemplates Town Planning and Valuation Department. It would
thus be seen that the two departments are entitled to deal with the lands
acquisition and valuation thereof. Urban Planning Scheme in the Urban
area was allotted to the Urban Development Department and Urban                 E
Development and Urban Housing Department and the land acquisition,
though part of the Town Planning Scheme, was equally an allotted subject
to the Revenue Department under the subject referred to hereinbefore.

      It is seen from the note file that when the proceedings have gone
before the Secretary to the Revenue Department, by his note dated July 3,       F
1993 he stated thus :

        "(1) May be submitted to Government.

        (2) Legal position being what it is, it would serve no useful purpose   G
        in discussing the issue in a survival meeting with U.D.D."

      It would appear that initially in the note dated July 2, 1993, there was
a suggestion to refer the matter to the Urban Development Department
but later it was struck off and the above endorsement came to be made.
On that basis, the Minister for Revenue had approved the suggestion made H
    106                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   by the Secretary on July 6, 1993. It is also clear from the record placed
    before us that the Urban Development Department after finding that the
  , Revenue Department is not proceeding with the acquisition had taken a
    decision to approach the Chief Minister who, on receipt thereof, sought
    legal opinion and the Law Department opined that the view of Revenue
    Department does not bind the Chief Minister. The question then is who
B
    would take the decision in that behalf. It would be appropriate to deal with
    the instructions issued in this behalf.

             Instruction 4 in Part II says that :

             "4(1) Except as otherwise provided in these Instructions cases shall
c            ordinarily be disposed of by or under the authority of the Mini-
             ster-in-charge, who may, be means of standing orders, give such
             directions as he thinks fit for the disposal of cases in the Depart-
             ment.11

D            Instructions 9 and 10 says that :

             "(9) When the subject of a case concerns more than one Depart-
             ment no order shall be issued nor shall the case be laid before the
             Council or the Cabinet until it has been considered by all the
             Departments concerned unless the case is one of extreme urgency.
E
             (10) If the Department concerned are not in agreement regarding
             a case dealt with under instruction 9, the Minister-in-charge of the
             Department may, if he wishes to proceed with the case, direct that
             the case be submitted to the Chief Minister for orders for laying
             the case before the Council or the Cabinet."
F
           The instructions are integral part of the scheme of the Business Rules
     and have constitutional flavour and force to supplement the rules. It would
     thus be seen that though the Minister-in-charge of the subject is em-
     powered to have the subject disposed of in the manner laid down in the
G    Business Rules and when two Ministers arc not in agreement with the
     manner of the disposal of a matter or decision, then under instruction 10
     the concerned subject should be submitted to the Chief Minister for laying
     the same before the Council or the Cabinet.

           The responsibility of Council of Ministers unci~r Article l64 (2) of
H the Constitution embodies the political responsibility of the Ministry
                          G.K PATIL v. STATE                           107

headed by the Chief Minister. Collective responsibility makes each Mini- A
ster responsible to the Legislature for the acts of himself and other mem-
bers of the Council of Ministers. Since the Council of Ministers would stay
in office as long as it commands the majority of the Legislative Assembly,
The Council of Ministers is politically responsible as one entity. In case it
loses it confidence the Ministry as a whole is required to resign. The B
responsibility to the Governor and accountability to the people collectively
by the Council of Ministers is through and by the Chief Minister. It would,
therefore, be clear that the decision of a Minister under the Business Rules
is not final or conclusive until the requirements in terms of clauses (1) and
(2) of Articl~ 166 are complied with. Before the action or the decision is
expressed in the name of the Governor in the manner prescribed under C
the Business Rules and communicated to the party concerned it would
always be open by necessary implication, to the Chief Minister to send for
the file and have it examined by himself and to take a decision, though the
subject was allotted to a particular Minister for convenient transaction of
the business of the Government. The subject, though exclusively allotted to D
the Minister, by reason of the responsibility of the Chief Minister to the
Governor and accountability to the people, has implied power to call for
the file relating to a decision taken by a Minister. The object of allotment
of the subject to a Minister is for the convenient transaction of the business
 at various levels through designated officers. The ultimate object is to
secure an impartial, pure and efficient administration as propounded by E
Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly vide Constituent Assembly
Debates. Vol. VIII page 546.

       In Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1962) Supp. 3 SCR 713 a
Constitution Bench of this Court was to consider whether the order of the     F
Revenue Minister could not be reviewed and set aside by the Chief
Minister. In that context it was held that the order must be expressed in
the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and then
it has to be communicated. Until such an order is drawn up by the State
Government in accordance with Article 166 (1), the State Government           G
cannot be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. The business
of State is a complicated one and has necessarily to be conducted through
the agency of large number of officials and authorities. The action must be
taken by the authority concerned in the name of the Raj Pramukh. The
Minister is no more than an advisor and as head of the State the Governor
or the Raj Pramukh has to act with the aid and advice of the Council of       H
    108                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A      '
    Ministers.  Until the advice is accepted by the Governor, whatever the
    Mini~ter or the Council of Ministers may say with regard to a particular
    matter, does not become the action of the state until the advice of the
    Council of Ministers is accepted by the head of the State. Until order is
    drawn up in the manner indicated by Article 166(1) and communicated to
    the person who would be affected by the order it would be open to the
B   Council of Ministers to consider the matter over and over again and,
    therefore, till its communication, the order cannot be regarded as anything
    more than provisional in character. Even if the rule does not contemplate
    that the Chief Minister would be entitled to pass an order .but when the
    rule envisages that he is entitled to call for the file for issue of order, it
c   clearly implies that he has the right to interfere and make such order as
    he may deem appropriate. The Chief Minister may call any file and deal
    with it himself. The order passed by the Chief Minister even though it is a
    matter pertaining to the portfolio of the Revenue Minister will be deemed
    to be an order of Council of Ministers. So deemed, its contents would be
D   the Chief Minister's advice to the Governor for which the Council of
    Ministers would be collectively responsible. This view was reiterated by a
    larger Bench of seven Judges of this Court in State of Kamataka v. U11io11
    of India & Am., AIR 1978 SC 68. In paragraph 46 this Court held that the
    object of collective responsibility is to make the whole body of persons
    holding ministerial office collectively or if one may so put it, vicariously
E   responsible for such acts or the other as are referable to their collective
    volition so that even if an individual may not be responsible for it he will
    be deemed to share the responsibility with those who may have actually
    committed the wrongful act. In paragraph 48 the Court observed that
    responsibility to Parliament only means that the Minister may be compelled
    by convention to resign. Out of this responsibility arose the principle of
F
    collective responsibility. The Goverrunent has to be carried on as a unity
    rather than by a number of advisers of the Sovereign acting separately.

           In Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR (1979) SC 220 a
    Bench of three Judges held that expression of the order in the name of the
G   Governor as required by Article 166 of the Constitution and communica-
    tion thereof to the party affected thereby are conditions precedent for the
    order to bind the Government. In that case the order thougl1 initially was
    made by the Minister, the order of confirmation was canc~!led by the Chief
    Minister before it was communicated. This Court upheld the order to be
H   legal.
                                        ..
                              G.K. PATIL v. STATE                          109

           The same view was reiterated in State of Kera/a v. Lakshmikutty & A
    Ors., AIR (1987) SC 331. It would thus be clear that before an order or
    action can bind the Government it must be drawn in the name of the
    Governor as envisaged in Article 166(1) and (2) read with the Business
    Rules and must be communicated to the affected person. Until then, the
    action of the Government is not final. Before it is duly done, Chief Minister B
    has power to call for any file and would have it re-examined and decision
    taken.

          It would thus be seen that the decision of the Revenue Minister on
    July 6, 1973 is not final because the Urban Development Department did
    not accept or agree to the decision taken by the Minister for Revenue. As     C
    stated earlier, when the matter was brought by the Ministry of Urban
    Development and Housing Department to the notice of the Chief Minister,
    who holds ultimate responsibility and duty to report to the Governor and
    accountable to the people, the Chief Minister, in light of instruction 10,
    should place the decision necessarily before the Council or the Cabinet, as
    the case may be, and then may be decided by the Chief Minister. It is seen    D
    that no decision has been taken by the Chief Minister under instruction 10.
    Therefore, under Section S'A(2), no 1decision was taken to proceed further
    under section 6 or to drop the acquisition proceedings. The High Court,
    therefore, was right in rejecting the writ petition as being not proper for
    interference.                                                                 E
           The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

    U.R.                                                    Appeal dismissed.




-