NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

Kerwa Dam Road, Madhya Pradesh, 462044, India

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

COMPARITIVE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

SEMINAR PROJECT (XV TRIMESTER)

DEVELOPEMNT OF DROIT ADMINISTRATIF AND ITS IMPACT

ON COMMON LAW COUNTRIES LIKE INDIA

SUBMITTED BY- SUBMITTED TO-

Riddhiman Sarkar Dr. Sushma Sharma

(2015 B.A LLB. 99) Associate Professor

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to convey my gratitude towards the faculty for
Comparative Administrative Law, at National Law Institute University, Associate
Professor Sushma Sharma. The topic that I chose for this seminar project, Development
of Droit Administratif and its Impact on Common Law Countries like India, is one
which enjoys significant importance in the current landscape of comparative
administrative law. In the process of making this project, I have gained a significant
insight into the working of the Tribunal system, especially with regards to the legal
nuances surrounding droit administratif. I would also like to thank my parents and
grandparents who were a source of constant encouragement and motivation in my
pursuit towards making this seminar project.

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM .................................................................................. 4

HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................................. 4

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................ 4

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 5

MODE OF CITATION AND METHOD OF WRITING ....................................... 5

REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................................................................................... 6

I. BOOKS & ARTICLES ........................................................................................... 6

II. CASES ................................................................................................................ 7

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 10

GENESIS .................................................................................................................... 13

III. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DROIT ADMINSTRATIF............................................. 13

COMPOSITION AND CHARACTER ................................................................... 18

I. COMPOSITION ................................................................................................... 18

II. CHARACTER.................................................................................................... 18

CASE LAW ................................................................................................................ 20

ADOPTION AND WORKING OF DROIT ADMINISTRATIF IN COMMON

LAW COUNTRIES ................................................................................................... 21

I. AUSTRALIA ........................................................................................................ 22

II. CANADA .......................................................................................................... 22

III. INDIA ............................................................................................................... 22

IV. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ........................................................................ 23

V. UNITED KINGDOM .......................................................................................... 24

2
TRIBUNAL SYSTEM IN INDIA ............................................................................ 27

COMPARISON OF INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND THE

DROIT ADMINISTRATIF ...................................................................................... 28

NEED FOR REFORM IN INDIA ........................................................................... 31

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS .................................................................. 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 35

I. ARTICLES .......................................................................................................... 35

II. BOOKS ............................................................................................................. 35

III. MISCELLANEOUS ............................................................................................ 36

3
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This seminar project has been made by using the doctrinal methodology of research,
studying existing case laws, related cases and authoritative materials.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The system of droit administratif has been incorporated with modifications into the
administrative law framework and justice dispensation of various common law
countries like India. However, with changing times certain alterations have to be made
to make the process more equitable and efficient.

Through a comparative study of various common law jurisdictions, the author shall
attempt to highlight the present shortcomings and suggest how the same can be
overcome.

HYPOTHESIS

There are certain gaps which have emerged while incorporating a system of justice
dispensation from a foreign civil law jurisdiction in common law countries like India.

The context to this hypothesis is that different jurisdictions have incorporated different
aspects of the droit administratif system of justice system in their systems.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the genesis of the system of droit administratif?

2. What is the composition and character of the system of droit administratif?
3. How has the system of Droit Adminstratif been adopted in India and other
common law countries?
4. How the principles of droit administratif have ben incorporated in the Tribunal
System in India?
5. How does Indian Administrative Tribunals compare to Droit Administratif?
6. Is there any need for reform in the way droit administratif has been incorporated
in the Indian Tribunal System?

4
 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1. To understand the system of droit administratif in France.

2. To understand the Indian Administrative Tribunals.

3. To compare and analyze the droit administratif and the Indian Administrative
System.

4. To answer the various research question put forth.

MODE OF CITATION AND METHOD OF WRITING

The researcher has used a uniform method of citation according to the Harvard
Bluebook Citation, 20th edition. Additionally, the researcher has followed a descriptive
and analytical form of writing.

5
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

I. BOOKS & ARTICLES

1. Lectures on Administrative Law by C.K. TAKWANI

This book presents the fundamental principles of Administrative Law as they have
developed through the judicial process. The learned author has included all the latest
decisions of the Supreme Court and also of the foreign courts. Taking into account the
recent trend of law courts, principles of natural justice, doctrines of judicial review and
judicial remedies have been discussed in detail with reference to decided cases.

2. Administrative Law by I.P. MESSY

This book contains a lucid exposition of administrative law in all its aspects and
dimensions and offers a highly perceptive and critical analysis. Areas like
tribunalisation of justice, judicial review of administrative action, public and private
dilemma in the age of corporatisation have received special attention in this revision.
The book is divided into fifteen chapters in which the author has discussed a variety of
topics like Natural Justice, Delegated Legislation, Governmental Liability,
Enforcement of Public Duties, Ombudsman, Right to Know, Jurisdictional Reach,
Remedial Law, etc. Besides, the current edition also includes a chapter on
“Tribunalisation of Justice” which is relatively new to the field of administrative law.

3. Principles of Administrative Law by M.P. JAIN & SN JAIN

The authors remark that judge made law is constantly evolving and to obtain a grip on
what has been laid down by the courts is a difficult task. The arduousness of the task
is enhanced when the principles laid down by the Courts have relevance for every field
of law. Experts in any area of law cannot understand the rightful exercise of power in
that field be it educational, administration or services regulation without knowing the
relevant principles of administrative law controlling it. This book serves as an
authoritative textbook to understand the principles of Administrative Law both
generically and how they apply to a particular field of law. Additionally, it shows the
reader how the Courts have refined the enunciation and application of the Principles of

6
Administrative Law as the face of the Indian State changed from the days of the license
raj to the times of public disinvestment. It points out how the tasks of seeking
accountability have altered when performed by restraintivist or activist courts.

4. Administrative Justice in India by R. NAYAK

In this pioneering book, Nayak analyses all the adjudicating bodies in existence at the
State level. Using the State of Orissa as a case study, he considers their powers,
organisation and functions and classifies these adjudicating bodies along new and
logical lines. Highlighting the day-to-day functioning of administrative tribunals, he
warns that the purpose of creating tribunals as substitutes for regular courts is fast being
defeated by their tendency to be equally expensive and slow.

II. CASES
1. M.B. Majumdar v. Union of India

In this landmark case, the petitioner was a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative
Tribunal. In this case, he claimed that the equality of the Members of the
Administrative Tribunal with the Judges of the High Court, or even the Vice-Chairman
of the Tribunal, in the matter of pay, and age of superannuation.

The division bench held that Administrative Tribunals can be equated with High courts
as regards to its jurisdiction in service matters but not in case of service conditions of
the members of the tribunal.

2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India

In this case there were special leave petitions, civil appeals and writ petitions which
formed a batch of matters, brought before the Supreme Court in this case, owing their
origin to separate decisions of different High-Courts and several provisions in different
enactments- - thereby raising several distinct questions of law, which were grouped
together in this case for the purpose of adjudication upon them. These matters were
broadly pertaining to- the constitutional validity of sub-clause (d) of clause (2) of
Article 323-A and sub-clause (d) of clause (3) of Article 323-B of the Constitution of

7
India, 1950; and also, in regard to the constitutional validity of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B to the extent they
exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court were held to be
unconstitutional. It was held that the jurisdiction conferred upon the High-courts under
Article 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of the inviolable
basic-structure of the Constitution of India. While this jurisdiction (of the High-Courts
under Article 226/227 and of the Supreme Court under Article 32) cannot be ousted,
other courts and tribunals may perform a supplemental- as opposed to a substitutional-
role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the
Constitution.

3. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India

In this case, the constitutional validity of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was
challenged on the ground of exclusion of power of judicial review both of Supreme
Court under article 32 and High Courts under articles 226 and 227. The Court did not
care to distinguish judicial review or the power to redecide on merits. The Court
assumed that it was the power of judicial review that was excluded. Judicial review
was a basic feature of the Constitution. It is the law that power of judicial review cannot
be taken away. To get over the difficulty the Court relied on an observation by Justice
Bhagawati in Minerva Mills v. Union of India that judicial review could be taken away
if effective alternative institutional mechanism was provided. Later the Act was
amended51 and the jurisdiction of the apex Court under article was restored.

4. Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union

In 1958 Mr Breen was involved in, but absolved from, a dispute on misappropriating
union funds. He was voted in as shop steward at his oil refinery in Fawley in 1965, but
the district secretary in Southampton who had been party to the 1958 dispute rejected
his election. Mr Breen said this was contrary to natural justice. Cusack J held that rules

8
of natural justice did not apply, and the committee had unfettered discretion under the
rules. Only bad faith would suffice, and in any case the old dispute played no part.

The Court of Appeal upheld Cusack J, so that Mr Breen's election could be rejected by
the union. Edmund Davies LJ could see no authority for overturning the district
secretary’s decision otherwise. Megaw LJ agreed. Lord Denning MR, dissenting, said
administrative law applies to statutory and also to domestic bodies. He said that
administrative law requires that people get fair hearings, and that discretion is only
valid when irrelevant factors are not taken into account, even if the body is acting in
good faith.

9
 INTRODUCTION

The 20th century saw the development of several concepts in law. One such significant
development has been that of Administrative law as a separate legal concept.
Administrative law is the bye-product of the growing socio-economic functions of the
State and the increased powers of the government. Administrative law has become very
necessary in the developed society, the relationship of the administrative authorities
and the people have become very complex. In order to regulate these complex,
relations, some law is necessary, which may bring about regularity certainty and may
check at the same time the misuse of powers vested in the administration.

With the growth of the society, its complexity increased and thereby presenting new
challenges to the administration we can have the appraisal of the same only when we
make a comparative study of the duties of the administration in the ancient times with
that of the modern times.1 In the ancient society the functions of the state were very
few the prominent among them being protection from foreign invasion, levying of
Taxes and maintenance of internal peace & order. It does not mean, however that there
was no administrative law before 20th century.

In fact, administration itself is concomitant of organized Administration. In India itself,

administrative law can be traced to the well-organized administration under the
Mauryas and Guptas, several centuries before the Christ, following through the
administrative, system of Mughals to the administration under the East India Company,
the precursor of the modern administrative system.2 But in the modern society, the
functions of the state are manifold, in fact, the modern state is regarded as the custodian
of social welfare and consequently, there is not a single field of activity which is free
from direct or indirect interference by the state.

1
JAMES W. GARNER; French Administrative Law: The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 597-627.
2
C. Sumner Lobingier; Administrative Law and Droit Administratif: A Comparative Study with an Instructive Model,
University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 91, No. 1(Aug., 1942), pp. 36-58.

10
As the name suggests, it governs the activities of the administrative agencies in a
country. These actions may include the rule making, enforcing or regulatory powers of
the administrative units of the government. The sudden spurt and growth of this field
can be attributed to the change in the role of governments. Most states made a shift
from being a police state exercising sovereign functions to becoming a welfare state
with progressive democratic agendas.

This translated into more responsibilities upon the state which resulted in the creation
of tribunals and bodies that dealt with special laws. One of the earliest countries to
create tribunals was France by the name of ‘Droit Administratif’. This system has been
defined by A.V. Dicey as that portion of law which determines (a) the position of state
officials; (b) the rights and liabilities of private individuals in their dealings with
officials and (c) the procedure by which these rights and liabilities of private
individuals are enforced. Dicey critcised the system of droit administratif prevailing in
France. In France there are two types of courts Administrative Court and Ordinary Civil
Courts. The disputes between the citizens and the Administration are decided by the
Administrative courts while the other cases, (i.e. the disputes between the citizens) are
decided by the Civil Court. Dicey was very critical to the separation for deciding the
disputes between the administration and the citizens.

According to Dicey the Rule of Law requires equal subjection of all persons to the
ordinary law of the country and absence of special privileges for person including the
administrative authority.3 This proportion of Dicey does not appear to be correct even
in England. Several persons enjoy some privileges and immunities. For example,
Judges enjoy immunities from suit in respect of their acts done in discharge of their
official function. Besides, Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, has provided
special protection to the official. Foreign diplomats enjoy immunity before the Court.
Further, the rules of ‘public interest privilege may afford officials some protection

3
Benard Ducamin: Role of Counseil d’Etat in Drafting Legislation, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.
30, Part 4, Oct. 1981, p.882.

11
against orders for discovery of documents in litigation.’ Thus, the meaning of rule of
law taken by Dicey cannot be taken to be completely satisfactory.

Most countries that follow the principles of common law have developed procedures
for judicial review that limit the reviewability of decisions made by administrative law
bodies. Often these procedures are coupled with legislation or other common law
doctrines that establish standards for proper rulemaking. Administrative law may also
apply to review of decisions of so-called quasi-public bodies, such as non-profit
corporations, disciplinary boards, and other decision-making bodies that affect the
legal rights of members of a particular group or entity.4 The further parts of the project
will analyze the emergence of the droit administratif, its development over the years
and the impact of the system on India.

4
Development of Administrative Law, New World Encyclopedia, available at:
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Info:Private_Page (Last accessed on: 29th April 2020).

12
 GENESIS

In Europe, the mediaeval King’s Court or the curia regis/aulia regia was heavily
influenced by, if not an imitation, of the Roman model.5 France had the system of
Counseil du Roi which was a smaller version of the King’s Court. It soon branched out
into 3 prongs: the Conseil Proper, Le Chambre des Enquetes (Court of finance) and
the Parlement (Judicial Court).6 In the 16th century, the Counseil du Roi overpowered
all other tribunals due to the fact that it claimed cognizance of all cases as and when it
pleased, from the ordinary courts. However, this power was short lived since conflicts
of jurisdiction arose.7 In the 17th Century, Louis XIV renamed the Counseil du Roi as
the Conseil Privé. In addition to other jurisdictions, it was granted the status of a
superior administrative court and had jurisdiction over appeals against the acts of state
of acts of grace emanating from the chancellery.8 In 1789, just before the French
revolution, the Conseil des Ministries was conferred “superior jurisdiction in
administrative matters, each in his own department” which was the origin of the
existing system of administrative jurisdiction according to Brissaud.9
III. DEVELOPMENT OF THE DROIT ADMINSTRATIF
French administrative law is known as Droit Administratif which means a body of rules
which determine the organization, powers and duties of public administration and
regulate the relation of the administration with the citizen of the country. Droit
Administrative does not represent the rules and principles enacted by Parliament. It
contains the rules developed by administrative courts.

Napoleon Bonaparte was the founder of the droit administrative. It was he who
established the Conseil d’Etat. He passed an ordinance depriving the law courts of their

5
MADDEN, POLITICAL THEORY AND LAW IN MEDIEVAL SPAIN (1930) 126.

6
BRISSAUD, History Of French Public Law (Garner's trans. 1915). IX CONT. LEG. HIST. SFR. 378 ct seq.

7
I DURCY, HISTORY OF FRANCE (1888) 290.

8
STUBBS, Some Landmarks of British Administrative Law: 1154-1189 (Select Charters, 8th ed. 1900), 296.

9
Supra note 2, at 388.

13
jurisdiction on administrative matters and another ordinance that such matters could be
determined only by the Conseil d’Etat. In France the Conseil du Roi was, originally,
"but a reduced form of the first capetictns” curia regis which soon differentiated into
three branches, the Conseil proper, Le Chambre des Enquetes, or Court of Finance,
and the Parlernent or Judicial Court. In 1302, the State’s General were summoned for
the first time and Le Chambre des Enquetes proceeded to make preliminary
examination of appeals. The former met, for the last time before the Revolution, in
1614.

In the 16th Century all French tribunals were being overshadowed by the growing
jurisdiction of the Conseil du Roi. It claimed cognizance of all manner of cases in which
the government was interested, and assumed power to withdraw cases, when it pleased,
from the ordinary courts. But the growing power of the Conseil du Roi did not pass
wholly unchallenged.

At the end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th, keen conflicts of
jurisdiction arose, not unlike the contemporary English conflicts between the common
law courts on the one side and the Chancery Court of Requests and Council of Wales,
on the other. In the 17th century, too, under Louis XIV and Richelieu, the Conseil du
Roi emerged as the Conseil Privte in contradistinction to the Conseil Commun. It had,
along with other jurisdiction that of a superior administrative court-"over appeals from
the orders of intendants for redress against the acts of the state or acts of grace
emanating from the chancellery (ennoblement, legitimation, patents of offices, etc.)".

In I789, on the eve of the Revolution, the State’s General were again convoked and on
June I7 of that year, declared themselves the National Assembly. Its attitude toward
the regular courts was one of suspicious hostility and among its first acts was a
prohibition of their interference with administration.10 After the Revolution in 1789 a
major breakthrough was made in this deadlock. The first step taken by the

10
C. Sumner Lobingier,: Administrative Law and Droit Administratif: A Comparative Study with an Instructive Model;
University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 91, No. 1(Aug., 1942), pp. 36-58

14
revolutionists was to curtail the power of the executive which was done on the theory
of separation of powers by the famous 16-24 August, 1790 Law. Counseil du Roi was
abolished and the king’s powers were curtailed. Napoleon, who became the first
Consul, favoured freedom for administration and also favoured reforms. He wanted an
institution to give relief to the people against the excesses of the administration.
Therefore, in 1799 Counseil d’Etat was established.

The main aim of the institution was to resolve difficulties which might arise in the
course of administration. In the beginning it was not an independent court but an
appendage of the executive. Its main task was to advise the minister with whom the
complaint was to be lodged. In fact, the minister was the judge, and the Counseil d’Etat
administered only advisory justice. It did not have public sessions. It had no power to
pronounce judgments. It represented the government’s point of view. It was this aspect
of the Counseil d’Etat which was against Dicey’s concept of rule of law.

In 1872, its formal power to give judgment was established. The Arrets (executive
Law) Blanco, February 8, 1873 finally laid down and settled that in all matters
involving administration, the jurisdiction of Counseil d’Etat would be final. It laid
down, among other things, the principle that questions of administrative liability would
be within the jurisdiction of administrative courts and that the liability was subject to
special rules different from those of Droit Civil. In 1889, it started receiving direct
complaints from the citizens and not through ministers. Droit administrative does not
represent the principles and rules laid down by the French Parliament; it consists of
rules developed by the judges of the administrative courts.

Waline,11 the French jurist, propounds three basic principles of droit administrative:

I. The power of administration to act suo motu and impose directly on the subject
the duty to obey its decision;

11
Supra note 2, at 300.

15
 II. The power of the administration to take decisions and to execute them suo motu
may be exercised only within the ambit of law which protects individual liberties
against administrative arbitrariness;
III. The existence of a specialized administrative jurisdiction.

One good result of this is that an independent body reviews every administrative action
The Conseil d’Etat is composed of eminent civil servants, deals with a variety of
matters like claim of damages for wrongful acts of Government servants, income-tax,
pensions, disputed elections, personal claims of civil servants against the State for
wrongful dismissal or suspension and so on. It has interfered with administrative orders
on the ground of error of law, lack of jurisdiction, irregularity of procedure and
detournement depouvior (misapplication of power). It has exercised its jurisdiction
liberally.

The present system of droit admnistratif consists of all the legal rules governing the
relation of public administrative bodies to one another or to individual. The droit
administratif as it exists today has four important features:

I. Dual system of courts: separate administrative courts

II. Conseil d’Etat
III. Tribunal des conflicts
IV. Application of special rules

Furthermore, droit administratif includes three sets if rules12:

I. Rules dealing with administrative authorities and officials: These relate

to appointment, dismissal, status, salary and duties, etc.
II. Rules dealing with the operation of public services to meet the needs of
citizens: These services may be operated either wholly by public officials or
under their supervision or they may assist private agencies to provide public
utility services

12
I.P. MESSY, Administrative Law, 7th ed., 2008, Eastern Book Co., (Lucknow).

16
 III. Rules dealing with administrative adjudication: If any injury is done to a
private citizen by the administration, the matter would be decided by the
administrative courts. Counseil d’Etat is the highest administrative court.
This system of administrative adjudication developed in France due to
historical reasons in order to avoid encroachment by the courts on the powers
of administrative authorities and prevent intrusion by the judges in the
business of administration.13

In case of conflict between the ordinary courts and the administrative courts regarding
jurisdiction, the matter is decided by the Tribunal des Conflicts. This tribunal consists
of an equal number of ordinary and administrative judges and is presided over by the
minister of justice. There is no Code of Droit Administratif like the Code Civil. The
Counseil d’Etat has developed and elaborated the doctrines on its own. This has been
done neither to justify the arbitrary powers of the administrative officials nor to narrow
the field of citizens’ liberty but to help citizens against the excesses of the
administration. Sometimes these new doctrines created by the Conseil d’Etat have been
adopted in the Civil Code through Parliament.14

13
Ibid.

14
Ibid.

17
 COMPOSITION AND CHARACTER

There are several administrative tribunals in France such as the Conseil

interdepartiental de Prefecture, Cour des Comptes, etc. For the purposes of this
seminar project, the author will analyse the features droit administratif, with special
reference to the Conseil d’Etat which is the most important of all.

I. COMPOSITION
The members of the Conseil d’Etat are appointed by executive decree after consulting
and taking the consent of the council of ministers. They are to be removed in the same
manner as well. The Tribunal des conflicts is composed of nine judges. Three out of
the nine are selected from the Cour de Cassation, three from the Conseil d’Etat and
two chosen by the selected 6 members. The ex officio president is the minister of
justice. However, it is the vice president who generally presides.15 By the establishment
of the Tribunal des conflicts, it is claimed that the French system has accomplished
separation of powers between the legislative, administrative and judiciary. This is due
to the fact the Tribunal des conflicts prevents the three to assume or exercise
jurisdiction save its own sphere.16 The Council has 7 divisions: Administrative claims,
Report and Studies, Public Works, Welfare and Social Security, Finances, Interior and
Administrative issues which is responsible for reviewing any cabinet issued orders and
instruments.17

II. CHARACTER
The creation of ‘special institution’ meant that these courts developed certain
characteristics of its own. The most important characteristic which contrasts the droit
administratif from civil law is that it is not codified. The main reason behind not
codifying the droit administratif can be attributed to the belief that codification meant
a pause in the growth of the law. The Conseil d’Etat was apart from being the

15
GARNER, Judicial Control of Administrative Acts in France (1915) 9 Am. Pol. Sci. REv. 638.

16
DAVID in DICEY’S LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION, (9th ed., Wade, 1939) 500.

17
Code of Administrative Justice, L112-2.

18
administrative body itself, was the appellate authority for cases pertaining to the
government and its employees. Thus, no further appeal lies with any authority for such
matters.18

It hears suits against the decision of the national government and those concerning
regional and European Union electoral matters. It has the jurisdiction to evaluate
regulations and administrative decisions in terms of their compliance with the
Constitution and other higher sources of law. It also has the discretion to rule on the
legality and validity of any executive branch decision barring the topic of “acts of
government” which is restricted to questions of relationship between the executive and
legislative branch and acts that are part of France’s foreign policy. The Conseil d’Etat
also acts as the court of cassation for appeals from any of the eight appellate
administrative courts, only when the plaintiff avers that the appellate court
misinterpreted or disregarded the law.

In deciding matters concerning the State and administrative litigation, special rules as
developed by the administrative courts are applied. Conflict of jurisdiction between
ordinary courts and administrative courts are decides by the agency known as Tribunal
des Conflits. It protects the government officials from the control of ordinary courts.
Counseil d’Etat which is the supreme administrative court is not a priori invention but
is the product of historical process with deep roots. It is not merely an adjudicatory
body but is also a consultative body. In 1979, it considered 147 draft laws which were
placed before the Parliament in 1980 and also considered 489 draft decrees.19

18
James Brown, De Gaulle's Republic and the Rule of Law: Judicial Review and the Conseil d'Etat, Boston University
Law Review 46, (1966), 462-492.
19
Benard Ducamin translated by William Dale, Role of Counseil d’Etat in Drafting Legislation, International and
Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 30, Part 4, Oct. 1981, p.882

19
 CASE LAW

Amongst the most famous and recent decisions are the dwarf-tossing20 and asbestos
case.21 In the dwarf-tossing case, a mayor prohibited the dwarf-tossing tradition on the
grounds that it was against the public interest and it did not repect human dignity. When
this act was challenged, the Conseil d’Etat held that respect for human dignity is a part
of the public order and hence, the act of the mayor was legal. The Conseil d’Etat in the
asbestos case held that the state is responsible for not taking appropriate steps,
according to recent trends and health measures, in order to protect workers’ safety and
health against asbestos. This decision applied to situations where workers were hired
by private employers as well.

20
Municipality of Morsang-sur-Orge-Rec, available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080205040152/http://www.conseiletat.fr/ce/jurisp/index_ju_la47.shtml (last accessed at:
26th April 2020).

21
Press release of March 3, 2004,
https://web.archive.org/web/20040313022806/http://www.conseiletat.fr/ce/actual/index_ac_lc0405.shtml (last visited:
29th April 2020).

20
 ADOPTION AND WORKING OF DROIT ADMINISTRATIF IN COMMON
LAW COUNTRIES

Generally speaking, most countries that follow the principles of common law have
developed procedures for judicial review that limit the reviewability of decisions made
by administrative law bodies. Often these procedures are coupled with legislation or
other common law doctrines that establish standards for proper rulemaking.
Administrative law may also apply to review of decisions of so-called quasi-public
bodies, such as non-profit corporations, disciplinary boards, and other decision-making
bodies that affect the legal rights of members of a particular group or entity.

While administrative decision-making bodies are often controlled by larger

governmental units, their decisions could be reviewed by a court of general jurisdiction
under some principle of judicial review based upon due process (United States) or
fundamental justice (Canada). Judicial review of administrative decision, it must be
noted, is different from an appeal. When sitting in review of a decision, the Court will
only look at the method in which the decision was arrived at, whereas in appeal the
correctness of the decision itself will be under question. This difference is vital in
appreciating administrative law in common law countries.

The scope of judicial review may be limited to certain questions of fairness, or whether
the administrative action is ultra vires. In terms of ultra vires actions in the broad sense,
a reviewing court may set aside an administrative decision if it is patently unreasonable
(under Canadian law), Wednesbury unreasonable (under British law), or arbitrary and
capricious (under U.S. Administrative Procedure Act and New York State law).
Administrative law, as laid down by the Supreme Court of India, has also recognized
two more grounds of judicial review which were recognized but not applied by English
Courts viz. legitimate expectation and proportionality.

The powers to review administrative decisions are usually established by statute but
were originally developed from the royal prerogative writs of English law, such as the
writ of mandamus and the writ of certiorari. In certain Common Law jurisdictions, such

21
as India or Pakistan, the power to pass such writs is a constitutionally guaranteed
power. This power is seen as fundamental to the power of judicial review and an aspect
of the independent judiciary.

I. AUSTRALIA
Australia possesses well-developed ombudsman systems, and Freedom of Information
laws, both influenced by comparable overseas developments. Its notice and comment
requirements for the making of delegated legislation has parallels to the United States.
Australia's borrowings from overseas are still largely shaped by its evolution within a
system of parliamentary democracy that loosely follows a Westminster system of
responsibility and accountability.22

II. CANADA
Canadian administrative law is the body of law in Canada addressing the actions and
operations of governments and governmental agencies. That is, the law concerns the
manner in which courts can review the decisions of administrative decision-makers
(ADM) such as a board, tribunal, commission, agency or minister. The body of law is
concerned primarily with issues of substantive review (the determination and
application of a standard of review) and with issues of procedural fairness (the
enforcement of participatory rights).23

III. INDIA
Indian law refers to the system of law which operates in India. It is largely based on
English common law because of the long period of British colonial influence during
the British Raj period. Much of contemporary Indian law shows substantial European
and American influence. Various acts and ordinances first introduced by the British are
still in effect in modified form today. During the drafting of the Indian Constitution,
laws from Ireland, the United States, Britain, and France were all synthesized to get a
refined set of Indian laws as it currently stands. Indian laws also adhere to the United

22
C.K. TAKWANI: Lectures on Administrative Law, 6th ed., 2012; Eastern Book Co., (Lucknow) p. 40..

23
Ibid.

22
Nations guidelines on human rights law and environmental law.24 Certain international
trade laws, such as those on intellectual property, are also enforced in India. This will
be dealt with in more detail in the upcoming sections.

IV. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Administrative law was in existence in America in the 18th century, when the first
federal administrative law was embodied in the statute in 1789, but it grew rapidly with
the passing of the Inter-State Commerce Act, 1877. In 1893, Frank Goodnow published
a book on ‘Comparative Administrative law’ and in 1905, another book on ‘Principles
of Administrative law of the United States’ was published. In 1911, Ernst Freund’s
‘Casebook on Administrative law’ was published. The bench and the bar also took
interest in the study of administrative law.

In his address to the American Bar Association in 1946, President Elihu Root warned
the country by saying: “There is one special field of law, development of which has
manifestly become inevitable. We are entering upon the creation of a body of
administrative law, quite different in its machinery, its remedies and its necessary
safeguards from the old methods of regulation by specific statutes enforced by the
courts....If we are to continue a government of limited powers, these agencies of
regulation must themselves be regulated...”

Unfortunately, this advice of a wise counsel was ignored by the leaders of the Bar. The
powers of the administrative bodies continued to increase day by day and they became
a ‘Fourth Branch’ of the government. After the New Deal, it was felt necessary to take
effective steps in this field.25 A special committee was appointed in 1933 which called
for greater judicial control over administrative agencies. After the report of the Roscoe
Pound Committee in 1938 and Attorney General’s Committee in 1939, the
Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 was passed which contained many provisions
relating to the judicial control over administrative actions.

24
Ibid.

25
C.K. TAKWANI: Lectures on Administrative Law, 4th ed., 2008; Eastern Book Co., (Lucknow) p. 11.

23
 V. UNITED KINGDOM
In England, by and large, the existence of administrative law as a separate branch of
law was not accepted until the advent of the 2oth century. In 1885, Dicey rejected the
concept, altogether. In his famous thesis on rule of law, he observed that there was no
administrative law in England. He had pronounced to Robson: “In England, we know
nothing of administrative law, and we wish to know nothing about it.”26

But while saying so he ignored the existence of administrative discretion and

administrative justice which were current even in his days. In a large number of statutes
discretionary powers were conferred on the executive authorities and administrative
tribunals which should not be called into question by the ordinary courts of law. But
he disregarded them altogether. It appears that his contemporary Maitland was quite
conscious of the true position and he observed in 1887: “If you take up a modern
volume of the reports of the Queen’s Bench Division, you will find that about half of
these cases reported have to do with rules of administrative law.” He added; “We are
becoming a much governed nation, governed by all manners of councils and boards
and officers, central and local, high and low, exercising the powers which have been
committed to them by modern statutes.” 27

But as Taylor stated; “Until August 1914, a sensible law abiding Englishman could
pass through his life and hardly notice the existence of the state beyond the post office
and the policeman.”28 In Ridge v Baldwin,29 Lord Reid also said; “We do not have a
developed system of administrative law- perhaps because until fairly recently we did
not need it.” In 1914, however, Dicey changed his views. In the last edition of his
famous book ‘Law and the Constitution’, published in 1915, he admitted that during
the last thirty years, due to increase of duties and authority of English officials, some

26
ROBSON, Administrative law in England, Oxford Publications at pp. 85-86.

27
MAITLAND, Constitutional history of England, New England Publications (1955) at p. 501.

28
ROBSON, English History, Cambridge Publications (1914-15) at p.1.
29
(1963) 2 All ER 66 at p.76

24
elements of droit had entered into England. But even then, he did not concede that there
was administrative law in England.

However, after two decisions of the House of Lords in Board of Education v Rice30 and
Local Government Board v Alridge,31 in his article ‘The Development of Administrative
Law in England’32 he observed: “Legislation had conferred a considerable amount of
quasijudicial authority on the administration which was a considerable step towards
the introduction of administrative law in England.”

According to Friedmann33, unfortunately, Dicey misunderstood the scope and ambit of

administrative law. He thought administrative law to be inconsistent with the
maintenance of the rule of law. Hence, while studying the rule of law, he excluded
altogether administrative law and a special system of administrative courts. As
observed by Griffith and Street34, the study of administrative law had to suffer a lot
because of Dicey’s conservative approach.

In due course, scholars made conscious efforts to now the real position. But even to
them, the study of administrative law was restricted only to two aspects, viz. delegated
legislation and administrative adjudication. Even in 1935, Lord Hewart, Chief Justice
of England described the term ‘Administrative law’ as ‘continental jargon’.35

In 1929, the Committee on Minister’s Powers headed by Lord Donoughmore was

appointed by the British government to examine the problems of delegated legislation
and the judicial and quasi-judicial powers exercised by the officers appointed by the
ministers and to suggest effective steps and suitable safeguards to ensure the supremacy

30
1911 AC 179

31
1915 AC 120

32
(1915) 31 LQR 148

33
JOHNSON, American Administrative law (1962) at p.21

34
M.P. JAIN & SN JAIN: Principles of Administrative Law, 6th ed. Reprint, 2010; Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
(Nagpur) at p. 15

35
Ibid.

25
of the rule of law. In 1932, the Donoughmore Committee submitted its report and made
certain recommendations with regard to better publication and control of subordinate
legislation, which were accepted by Parliament with the passage of the Statutory
Instruments Act, 1946.

In 1947, the Crown Proceedings Act was passes by the British Parliament which made
the government liable to pay damages in cases of tortuous and contractual liability of
the Crown. Thus, the abandonment of the doctrine; “The king can do no wrong”
considerably expanded the scope of administrative law in England.

In 1958, the Tribunals and Inquiries Act was passed for the purpose of better control
and supervision of administrative decisions, and the decisions of the administrative
authorities and tribunals were made subject to appeal and supervisory jurisdiction of
the regular courts of law. In the twentieth century, social and economic policies of the
government had significant impact on private rights, housing, employment, planning,
education, health and several other matters.

Neither the legislation could resolve those problems nor could ‘Crown’s Courts’
provide effective remedies to the aggrieved parties. That had resulted in increase of
delegated legislation as also tribunalisation. In Breen v Amalgamated Engg. Union,36
Lord Denning proclaimed; “It may truly now be said that we have developed system
of administrative law.” Lord Diplock37 went a step further and stated that recent
development in England provided a system of administrative law which in substance
nearly as comprehensive in its scope as droit administratif in France. Some British
scholars advocated in favour of droit administratif and suggested to import that concept
and Counseil d’Etat of French legal system to England, though others did not favour
the idea.

36
(1971) 1 All ER at p. 1153

37
IRC v National Federation of Self Employed, 1982 AC 167 at p.641.

26
 TRIBUNAL SYSTEM IN INDIA

The popular technique to question administrative actions in India has been by way of
writs before the High Court38 or the Supreme Court.39 With regard to tribunals, the
existence of several specialised laws has seen the creation of tribunals that deal with
specific questions of law. It is indeed surprising to note that ‘Tribunal’ has not been
statutorily defined and hence most adjudicatory bodies that have the characteristics of
a tribunal are referred to as the court. For example, Debt recovery Tribunal, National
Company Law Tribunal, Consumer Court, National Green Tribunal, etc. The case of
Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Lakshmi Chand40 is a landmark case as it deals with the question
of whether ‘tribunal’ has the trappings of a court, i.e. whether it has the authority to
determine matters, impose penalties, sanctions or even to follow the rules of evidence.
In Bharat Bank Ltd. v/s Employees, the Supreme Court held that although tribunals are
shrouded in the trappings of court, they are not a full-fledged court.41 The test to
determine whether an adjudicatory body is a tribunal or court is laid down in Articles
136 or 226 of the Constitution of India. In order to qualify as an adjudicatory body
under the above mentioned Articles, a tribunal:

✓ Must be an adjudicatory body other than the court,

✓ The power of adjudication must be derived from a statute or a statutory rule, and

✓ The power of adjudication must not be derived from an agreement between the
parties.

However, these tribunals (as mentioned in the example and other innumerable similar
tribunals) only relate to a specific field or specialization of law and not to
administrative acts.

38
India Const, art. 226.

39
India Const, art. 32..

40
A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 677

41
1950 AIR 188

27
 COMPARISON OF INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND THE
DROIT ADMINISTRATIF

The tribunal that is most similar to the droit administratif in India are the Central and
State Administrative Tribunals. The Central Administrative Tribunals Act in 1985
initially provided that orders of the CAT may only be challenged in the Supreme Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution. Later, the High Court was empowered to
entertain appeals against orders of the CAT under Article 226 of the Constitution.42

In the present scenario, the administrative tribunals derive its powers and credibility
from Article 323(A) of the Constitution. This article provides for adjudication of
disputes relating to conditions of service of the Union and State Public Servants and
was introduced to the Constitution by way of the 42 nd Constitutional Amendment Act,
1976.43 The commonality between the 42nd amendment and the droit administratif was
to ensure that the High Courts are eased of their burden due to backlog of cases and
simultaneously, to create an expert forum that will deal with administrative disputes in
a quick and efficient manner.44

After the amendment of Article 323(A), the Administrative Tribunals Act as well as
the Central Administrative Tribunal Act was affected in 1985. This was a major leap
in the institutionalization of tribunals. Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act
precluded the High Courts from carrying out judicial review for judgements of the
CAT. Thus, the only option an aggrieved party had, was to resort to Article 136 of the
Constitution of India through which it could challenge the CAT order in the Supreme
Court.

42
R. NAYAK, ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE IN INDIA 38 (1989)

43
D.D.BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (8th ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa
2011), 10,645.
44
RAJEEV DHAVAN, Amending the Amendment: The Constitution (Forty-fifth Amendment) Bill, 1978, 20 J.I.L.I. (1978)
249-272, 267

28
This was also confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of
India where it was held that the parliament is acting within its competence in amending
the constitution as long as it substitutes the High Court’s position by way of an
alternative mechanism to ensure the process of judicial review.45 Herein lies a major
difference between the Indian Tribunal system and the droit administratif as the latter
does not provide for judicial review while the former does. The reason behind this is
due to the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld the power of judicial review as
integral to the constitution through which the principle of rule of law is preserved. 46
However, it is to be noted that, in certain cases, judicial review need not apply to
decisions passed by quasi-judicial bodies.47 Another case law that granted the tribunal
equivalent powers to the High Court is J.B. Chopra v. Union of India.48 The Supreme
Court decided on the question whether the tribunal had the power to strike down a
statute or law on grounds of constitutional invalidity. It referred to the Sampath Kumar
case and concluded that such a reasoning would logically flow from this judgement.
At the same time, it clarified that the tribunal would not have jurisdiction to decide on
the constitutionality of orders relating to service matters.49

While it may seem that the Administrative Tribunal is at par with the High Court, the
judgement in M.B. Majumdar v. Union of India decided otherwise.50 The Supreme
Court held that members of the tribunal are not entitled to the same pay and
superannuation as that of High Court judges and equating them would not be justified.
However, the Administrative Tribunal Act provides for a vertical structure wherein the

45
(1987) 1 S.C.C. 124

46
Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, (1981) 1 S.C.R. 206.

47
L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, 997 (2) SCR 1186

48
(1987) 1 S.C.C. 422

49
M.L. Upadhyay, Administrative Tribunals : No Alternative Mechanism for Judicial Review', Central India Law
Quarterly, Vol. 2 (1989) 433

50
1990 S.C.R. (3) 946

29
Chairman of the tribunal supersedes the Vice-Chairman. The position held in the
Sampath Kumar Case was not long celebrated as it was overruled by the Supreme Court
in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India.51 The Supreme Court stated that Tribunals
cannot substitute High Courts and Supreme Courts and thus, the current position is that
their decisions can be challenged before a Division Bench of a High Court. In light of
this, Articles 323A(2)(d), 323B(3)(d) of the Constitution of India and Section 28 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act were held to be unconstitutional as they excluded the
judicial review of the High Courts. This judgement is heavily criticised as it derogates
from the main purpose of setting up Administrative tribunals, which was to ease the
burden of Civil and High Courts.52

51
997 (2) SCR 1186
52
M.P. JAIN & S.N. JAIN, Principles of Administrative Law, Vol.1 668 (6th ed., Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa
2007)

30
 NEED FOR REFORM IN INDIA

The Law Commission of India constituted in 1955 observed that the vast amount of
Legislation which has been enacted by the Union and the States, a great deal of which
impinges in a variety of ways on our lives and occupations. Much of it also confers
large powers on the executive. The greater, therefore, is the need of ceaseless
enforcement of the rule of law, so that the executive may not, in a belief in its monopoly
of wisdom in its zeal for administrative efficiency, overstep the bounds of its power
and spread its tentacles into the domains where the citizens should be free to enjoy the
liberty guaranteed to him by the constitution.

From the above citation it can be said that the since the independence till today very
less efforts have been made to evolve a mechanism to regulate the functions of
administrative authorities so as to make them in consonance with constitutional
freedom guaranteed to each individual. Without some kind of power to control
administrative authorities there is a danger that they may commit excesses and
degenerate into arbitrary bodies.

There has not been so far much conscious effort on the part of Government and
Parliament in this Country to develop a viable system of administrative law drawing a
balance between personal rights and freedoms, on the one hand, and administrative
needs and exigencies of a developing social welfare state, on the other.

In England and USA, such attempts have been made from time to time, but in India
attempts in this direction are, by and large, lacking so far and, therefore, a huge burden
has been cast on the judiciary to give shape to the principles by which administrative
functioning and behaviour can be regulated keeping in view the twin objectives
mentioned above.

Since independence it has become necessary to re-condition and develop the principles
of administrative law, so as to meet the needs of a democratic them with the demands
made on a country to develop fast in the socio-economic sphere. Since commencement
of the constitution the most commonly used technique to bring an administrative action

31
within the cognizance of the courts has been the writ system (Art. 32 & 226).
Innumerable cases have taken place in this area and hundreds of cases continue to be
filed against the administration every year for seeking its redress. The writ jurisdiction
conferred on the High Court’s by Art. 226 can be invoked to enforce not only
fundamental rights but a non-fundamental right as well. The High Courts and Supreme
Court steep in to correct the error where the rules framed under the governing law do
not conform to the law or the action of the administrator is not in accordance with the
administrative rules or are against the fundamental axiom of justice and fair play.

However, remedy is available at the disposal of the court of law. No fixed, codified
laws are been framed to decide the dispute between individual and public official. The
courts have also, however, evolved self-imposed restrictions. Matters which effect
policy and require technical expertise, the High court would leave such matters for
decision to those qualified to redress this issue.

32
 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The Government of India are contemplating to set up administrative tribunals on the

French Model for disposal of cases relating to fiscal and labour laws. France has
developed a system of administrative tribunals distinct from the ordinary courts which
have no jurisdiction on the administration. Droit administratif is the name given to the
Administrative Law prevailing in France. In this system the judicial power is kept
separate from administrative power. A person seeking any redress against the
administration has to go to an administrative court and not to an ordinary court. Thus,
the system of droit administrative in France has resulted in non-interference by the
Courts in the working of administrative authorities.53

The Conseil d’Etat has been characterized as the ‘bulwark of civil liberties’ and also
the ‘guardian of administrative morality’. The system has come to be regarded as
providing as effective protection to individual rights against the despotism of public
administration. The judges of Conseil d’Etat possess a high degree of administrative
expertise and so they are better able to control the administration than the ordinary
courts where the judges are generalists and lack expertise in the administrative action
is peripheral and lacks depth.54 The most outstanding contribution made by France to
legal science has been separate system of administrative jurisdiction and administrative
law created by Conseil d’Etat. It is true that the establishment of an institution similar
to Conseil d’Etat in France may not be quite suited to the conditions in India. However,
it is necessary to develop administrative courts on the lines of the French Conseil d’Etat
would be necessary because that will serve as counterpoise to the arbitrary action of
the administration.

The Chandra Kumar case, in the opinion of the author was one step forward, two steps
back with regard to administrative tribunals in India. Its ruling is contradictory and
strikes at the very reason as to why administrative tribunals were created in the first

53
J.J.R. UPADHYAYA: Administrative Law, 7th ed., 2011; Central Law Agency, (Allahabad) at p.14.

54
Supra, note 35.

33
place: to relieve the High Court from overburdening of cases. While tribunals may not
be at the same hierarchy as that of the High Court, it is necessary to restrict over-
interference into the tribunal’s adjudicatory process. A possible cure to this problem
might lie in the principle of delegated legislature. As discussed in the Chandra Kumar
judgement, administrative tribunals may be brought under an independent body such
as a nodal ministry such as the Law Ministry which may in turn delegate this
responsibility to an independent nodal agency. Therefore, it is necessary that the
agenda of the 422nd amendment is reconsidered and if not for a complete overhaul of
the administrative system, a partial adoption of the droit administratif might manifest
a close to perfect tribunal system in India.

34
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. ARTICLES
James W. Garner; French Administrative Law: The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 6,
pp. 597-627.

C. Sumner Lobingier; Administrative Law and Droit Administratif: A Comparative

Study with an Instructive Model, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and
American Law Register, Vol. 91, No. 1(Aug., 1942), pp. 36-58.

Benard Ducamin: Role of Counseil d’Etat in Drafting Legislation, International and

Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 30, Part 4, Oct. 1981, p.882.

Development of Administrative Law, New World Encyclopedia, available at:

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Info:Private_Page (Last accessed on:
29th April 2020).

James Brown, De Gaulle's Republic and the Rule of Law: Judicial Review and the
Conseil d'Etat,, Boston University Law Review 46, (1966), 462-492.

Rajeev Dhavan, Amending the Amendment: The Constitution (Forty-fifth

Amendment) Bill, 1978, 20 J.I.L.I. (1978) 249-272, 267.

II. BOOKS
MADDEN, POLITICAL THEORY AND LAW IN MEDIEVAL SPAIN (1930) 126.

BRISSAUD, History of French Public Law (Garner's trans. 1915). IX CONT. LEG.
HIST. SFR. 378 ct seq.

I DURCY, HISTORY OF FRANCE (1888) 290.

STUBBS, Some Landmarks of British Administrative Law: 1154-1189 (Select Charters,

8th ed. 1900), 296.

I.P. MESSY, Administrative Law, 7th ed., 2008, Eastern Book Co., (Lucknow).

GARNER, Judicial Control of Administrative Acts in France (1915) 9 Am. Pol. Sci.
REV. 638.

35
DAVID in Dicey’s Law of The Constitution, (9th ed., Wade, 1939) 500.

C.K. TAKWANI: Lectures on Administrative Law, 6th ed., 2012; Eastern Book Co.,
(Lucknow) p. 40.

ROBSON, Administrative law in England, Oxford Publications at pp. 85-86.

MAITLAND, Constitutional history of England, New England Publications (1955) at p.

501.

M.P. JAIN & SN JAIN: Principles of Administrative Law, 6th ed. Reprint, 2010; Lexis
Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, (Nagpur)

R. NAYAK, Administrative Justice in India, 38 (1989).

D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (8th ed., Lexis

Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa 2011), 10,645.

III. MISCELLANEOUS
Municipality of Morsang-sur-Orge-Rec, available at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080205040152/http://www.conseiletat.fr/ce/jurisp/ind
ex_ju_la47.shtml (last accessed at: 26th April 2020).

Press release of March 3, 2004,

https://web.archive.org/web/20040313022806/http://www.conseiletat.fr/ce/actual/ind
ex_ac_lc0405.shtml (last visited: 29th April 2020).

36