Acting under Dictation: Why an Order Made on Another's Instructions Is No Order at All

📖 Mahadayal Premchandra v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1958 SC 667

Facts: An assessment to sales tax was made by the Commercial Tax Officer, on whom the statute conferred the power to assess. The Officer, though of the view on the material before him that the assessee was not liable, referred the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for instructions, and on receiving the opinion that the assessee should be assessed, passed an assessment order accordingly. The correspondence disclosing this course came to light and the assessment was challenged.

Held: The Supreme Court set aside the assessment. It held that the procedure adopted was unwarranted and contrary to the principles of natural justice: the power to assess had been conferred on the Commercial Tax Officer, and it was his duty to decide the matter on the material before him and according to his own judgment. By referring the question to a superior officer and acting on the instructions received, he had surrendered his judgment to another, so that the decision was in substance that of the Assistant Commissioner, who had no authority to make it and before whom the assessee had never appeared. The Court further observed that the assessee was not informed that the matter had been referred and had no opportunity to meet the view taken by the superior officer, so that the order was made on material he never saw.

Ratio: An authority on whom a statutory power is conferred must decide on his own judgment. An order passed on the instructions of a superior is in substance the superior's order, made by an authority without power and on material the person affected never had an opportunity to meet.

📖 Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 48

Facts: Questions of classification and excise duty fell to be decided by the Collector of Central Excise in the exercise of a quasi-judicial power. The Central Board of Revenue issued directions to the Collector as to how such matters were to be decided, and the Collector's orders followed those directions. The assessee contended that the orders were not the Collector's own and were therefore bad.

Held: The Supreme Court held the orders invalid. It held that the power to decide the questions in issue was conferred on the Collector and had to be exercised by him judicially and on his own judgment; the Board, which had supervisory and administrative authority over him, could not by issuing directions control the exercise of a quasi-judicial power, and if the Collector merely carried out those directions he did not decide the matter at all. The Court held that a direction issued by a superior authority to a subordinate exercising quasi-judicial functions is not binding on him in that capacity, and an order passed in obedience to such a direction is liable to be set aside; the assessee is entitled to a decision by the officer on whom the statute placed the duty, uninfluenced by instructions from elsewhere.

Ratio: A superior authority cannot control the exercise of a quasi-judicial power by directions, and such directions do not bind the officer in that capacity. An order passed in obedience to them is invalid.

The order was passed on an express direction from a superior

Void; the discretion was not exercised (Mahadayal)

The officer sought instructions and followed them

Void; seeking and obeying is the same abdication

A departmental circular required a particular result in every case

Void as to quasi-judicial functions (Orient Paper Mills)

The satisfaction of a designated officer was recorded on a superior's advice

The satisfaction is a nullity

The order was passed on the direction of a court or tribunal

Valid; a lawful judicial direction is not dictation

The officer sought and considered legal advice before deciding

Valid, provided he decided for himself

A statute expressly authorises the Government to issue binding directions

Valid as to policy, but not to the decision of individual quasi-judicial cases

The officer applied general departmental guidance while considering the case

Valid, provided he retained the freedom to depart in a proper case

Acting under dictation

The authority abdicated the decision to another

Non-application of mind

The authority decided, but without considering the matter

Fettering by policy

The authority applied a rule of its own inflexibly, without considering the case

Unlawful delegation

The authority formally transferred the power to another

Improper purpose

The authority decided for itself, but for an object the statute does not permit

Bias

The authority decided, but its mind was not open

Breach of natural justice

The person affected was not heard or was not shown the material

⚠ Dictation is proved from the file more often than from the order

The distinctive feature of this ground in practice is that it rarely appears on the face of the order. An order passed on instructions looks exactly like an order passed on the officer's own judgment, because it states the conclusion and gives reasons that could have been the officer's own. What discloses the defect is the record: a note referring the matter upwards for orders, a communication from a superior stating what should be done, a date sequence showing the decision was taken before the officer applied his mind. That is why the ground so often succeeds where the file has been produced, and why it is closely connected to the requirement that instructions be recorded rather than given orally, since an unrecorded instruction leaves nothing for a court to find.