Mere Communication Of Order By Subordinate Officer Not Delegation Of Statutory Power: Patna High Court Upholds Prisoner Transfer Extension
The Patna High Court has held that mere communication of an order by a subordinate officer does not amount to delegation of statutory power, upholding the extension of a prisoner's transfer ordered by prison authorities.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing a criminal writ petition challenging the order dated 30.10.2025 issued by the Assistant Inspector General...
The Patna High Court has held that mere communication of an order by a subordinate officer does not amount to delegation of statutory power, upholding the extension of a prisoner's transfer ordered by prison authorities.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey was hearing a criminal writ petition challenging the order dated 30.10.2025 issued by the Assistant Inspector General (Prisons), Bihar, extending the petitioner's transfer from Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna to Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur for a further period of six months.
The petitioner contended that under Section 29 of the Prisoners Act, 1900 read with Rule 781(vii) of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, the power to transfer prisoners vests exclusively in the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services. It was argued that the impugned order, having been issued by the Assistant Inspector General, was without jurisdiction and therefore ultra vires.
It was further submitted that the extension of transfer was based on vague grounds such as “law and order” and “public interest” without any concrete material, rendering the order arbitrary and a nullity in law.
The State, in response, submitted that the transfer and its extension were based on recommendations of the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, in light of the petitioner's involvement in multiple criminal cases and apprehensions of criminal conspiracy within the Beur Jail. It was further clarified that the decision had been duly approved by the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services.
Upon examining the statutory framework, the Court noted that Rule 781 of the Bihar Prison Manual clearly vests the power of transfer in the Inspector General, while Rule 792 outlines the assisting role of subordinate officers, including the Assistant Inspector General. The Court found that although the impugned order bore the signature of the Assistant Inspector General, the decision itself had been taken and approved by the Inspector General, based on relevant materials and recommendations.
Drawing a clear distinction between delegation and communication, the Court held:
“It goes without saying precisely that the essential legal distinction between communication and delegation is well settled. An officer authorised to assist superior authorities, by virtue of Rule 792(v) of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, is bound to act in conformity with their directions. A subordinate officer who merely transmits or communicates the decision of a competent authority acts as a conduit and not as a delegate, and is under a statutory obligation to give effect to such directions. It cannot, therefore, be contended that such subordinate has exercised independent decision-making authority.”
The Court further observed that the maxim delegatus non potest delegare applies only where there is an actual transfer of decision-making power, which was not the case here. Rejecting the petitioner's challenge, the Court held that the Assistant Inspector General had merely conveyed the decision of the competent authority, and that the statutory power had in fact been exercised by the Inspector General.
On the petitioner's plea of violation of Article 21 due to alleged delay in trial, the Court held that while the right to life and personal liberty includes the right to a fair and speedy trial, it is not absolute and must be assessed in the context of procedure established by law. The Court found no material to suggest that the transfer order had caused any delay in trial proceedings.
Holding that the impugned order was passed in accordance with statutory provisions and based on relevant considerations, the Court declined to interfere.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3170 of 2025.
Appearance: Senior Advocate Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, assisted by Mrs. Priyanka Singh, appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Kinkar Kumar, Mrs. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, and Ms. Sushmita Sharma appeared for the Respondents.