Skip to content

Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1957, (Maharashtra) Section 4 - Bare Act

StateMaharashtra Government
Section Title Repeal of Bom. Xxviii of 1950 and C. P. and Berar Act Lxi of 1948
Act Info:

(1) On the commencement of this Act, the Bombay Commissioners (Abolition of Office) Act, 1950. and the Central Provinces and Berar Commissioners (Construc tion of References) Act, 1948, shall be repealed.

(2) The repeal referred to in sub-section (1) shall not effect-

(a) any legal proceedings to which the State Government or any officer or authority (other than the Divisional Officer or Director of Local Authorities) is a party; and any such proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, be continued and disposed of if this Act had not been passed;

(b) any powers or duties, other than those conferred or imposed by or under the provisions of this Act on the Commissioner, which immediately before the commence ment of this Act may have been conferred or imposed by the State Government on any officer or authority other than a Divisional Officer or a Director of Local Authorities or which were exercisable or discharged by the State Government; or

(c) any appointment, notification, order, rule, regulation, by-law, form, instrument or document made, prescribed, issued or executed or deemed to have been made, prescribed, issued or executed by the State Govern ment or by any officer or authority under or with reference to the provisions of any existing law and any such appointment, notification, order, rule, regulation, by-law, form, instrument or document shall be valid on continue in operation unless and until it is superseded or modified by a competent authority.


The Legislature has not, abdicated itself in favour of the executive but it has laid down essential, legislative policy and wisely left it to the State Government to reorganise the administration consequent on the setting up of Commissioners of Division. The State Government is after all in-charge of administration and it knows specially in view its previous experience; what powers of existing authorities including itself can suitably be conferred on the Commissioners.

Sub-section (3) confers power on the State Government even to the extent of deleting any entry from the Schedule and withdrawing the power conferred by the Legislature in its wisdom on the Commissioner. This is not delegated legislation but transfer by the Legislature of its power in the matter of legislation to the executive. In effect, the Legislature says that though it considers that the Commissioner should have certain powers it has conferred on him in the schedule, the State Government may withdraw those powers which it has thought fit to confer on the Commissioner. This was not a proviso for delegated legislation but a transfer by the Legislature of its power to make law to the executive. Arnold Rodricks v. The State, 1967 Mah. L. J. (9, 10 and 21) : AIR 1966 SC 1788.

While deciding the validity of the Act held, where legislative policy is laid down, it cannot be said to be excessive delegation. Kanaiyalal v. State of Gujarat, 1972 Mah. L. J. 309 (SC) : 1972 Bom. L. R. 31.

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //