Jayantilal Amritlal Shodhan v. F.N. Rana (AIR 1964 SC 648)

This case answers a simple question: Did the President’s 1959 order, which gave Union work to State officers, still work after Bombay split into Gujarat and Maharashtra? The Supreme Court said yes. The order stood. So, Gujarat’s Commissioner could handle land acquisition for Union purposes. The Court also said a Section 5A enquiry is quasi-judicial, yet the Commissioner could rely on reports made by officers under him.

1. Did the President’s Article 258(1) notification remain effective after State reorganisation?
2. Does that notification count as “law” under Section 87 read with Section 2(d) of the Bombay Reorganisation Act?
3. In a Section 5A enquiry (Land Acquisition Act), could the Commissioner delegate and consider subordinate reports?
4. Did the Gujarat Commissioner have power to act under the notification?

• Article 258(1): The President may entrust Union executive functions to State officers with the State’s consent.
• Scope: Entrustment must fit within the Union’s executive power.
• Nature of notification: It guides how power is exercised. It does not itself change the text of the statute.

The Supreme Court held that the 1959 Presidential notification remained effective after reorganisation. The Gujarat Commissioner could proceed with Union-purpose land acquisition. In a Section 5A enquiry, the Commissioner could consider subordinate officers’ reports; the process stayed quasi-judicial because the Commissioner applied his mind. The Court clarified that the notification was an executive entrustment, not a text amendment of the statute, yet the proceedings were valid.

Note: The Court discussed when an executive order may be treated as “law in force,” referencing principles from earlier decisions like Edward Mills Co. v. State of Ajmer, and explained that entrustment does not itself rewrite the Act.

• Article 258(1) entrustment continues through State reorganisation unless withdrawn or changed.
• Notification = executive act guiding exercise of power; it does not amend the statute’s text.
• Section 5A remains quasi-judicial though the Commissioner may consider reports by authorised officers.

The case gives a workable rule for governance during State reorganisation. Union work entrusted to State officers does not stop just because borders change. It also shows how to keep a fair Section 5A enquiry while using administrative support.

• Article 258(1) entrustment survives State splits.
• Executive notification guides power; it is not a statutory amendment.
• Section 5A: Commissioner can consider subordinate reports but must decide himself.

Mnemonic: “Entrust—Endures—Enquire.”

1. Entrust Union work to State officers (Art. 258(1)).
2. Endures through reorganisation unless changed.
3. Enquire under Section 5A with fair hearing; use reports, final mind is Commissioner’s.

Article 258(1)

Lets the President give Union executive work to State officers with the State’s consent.

Section 5A

Hearing stage in land acquisition where objections are received and considered; quasi-judicial in nature.

Entrustment

Executive assignment of functions; it does not rewrite the statute but authorises action.