[10][11][12] In Dooney[13] the High Court of Australia (Callinan J),[14] observed that "No permanent head of a department in the Public Service is expected to discharge personally all the duties which are performed in his name and for which he is accountable to the responsible Minister."
While it is acknowledged as "the seminal articulation of the law governing the subdelegation of statutory and discretionary powers"[1] and it is still often cited,[16] it has not achieved the rigid standing that was originally intended.
[citation needed] It was first applied in A K Roy v State of Punjab (1986) 4 SCC 326, which held that sub-delegation of delegated power is ultra vires to the Enabling Act.
[20] In the United States, one of the earliest mentions of the principle occurred when it was cited by counsel for one of the litigants before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1794, in M'Intire v. Cunningham, 1 Yeates 363 (Pa. 1794).
The summary of the case reports, "Mr. Wilson had given no power to Noarth to transact his business; but if he even had, it is a maxim, that delegata potestas non potest delegari.