Page |1

“ REMEDIES AGAINST ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:AN

ANALYSIS’’

FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED BY:

VIVEK KUMAR
Semester VI, Section A

ROLL NO. 1775

Session : - 2017-2022

FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED TO:

DR. Fr. Peter Ladis F.
(FACULTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW)

SUBMITTED ON:30.05.2020

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
NYAYA NAGAR MITHAPUR,PATNA-800001

1
 Page |2

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) Project
Report entitled “Remedies Against Administrative Action:An Analysis”
submitted at Chanakya National Law University, Patna is an authentic record
of my work carried out under the supervision of Dr.Fr.Peter Ladis F. I have not
submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully
responsible for the contents of my Project Report.
 Page |3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide
Dr. Fr.Peter Ladis F.for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this research. The blessing, help and guidance given by him time to
time shall carry me a long way in the journey of life on which I am about to embark.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Fr.Peter Ladis F.for
providing me this research topic and for her cordial support, valuable information and
guidance, which helped me in completing this task through various stages.

Lastly, I thank almighty, my parents, brother and friends for their constant encouragement
without which this assignment would not be possible.

Thank You!

Vivek Kumar

Roll no:- 1775

 Page |4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Introduction......................................................................................…..….pg.05

1. Administrative Action.....................................................................................pg.09

2. Clas s ificat ion of A dminis trativ e A ct io n. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... ....Pg.18

3. Judicial Review of Administrative Action.......................................................Pg.29

4. Judicial review remedy.................................................................................... Pg.34

5. Conclusion......................................................................................................Pg.36

Bibliography........................................................................................................Pg.37
 Page |5

INTRODUCTION

Administrative law perceived as a different part of legitimate order amidst the twentieth
century in India. Today, the administration assumes essential job and encroaches
uninhibitedly and profoundly on each part of a person's life. Along these lines, administrative
law has turn into a key zone for study and research. Administrative law is dharma, which
conduces to the consistent quality and development of the general public and the upkeep of
social request and welfare of humanity and freedom. It gives the administrative forces to
accomplish the essential point of any cultivated society that is 'development with freedom'.
Administrative law has surprising social capacity to do. Without proper administrative law
any society would kick the bucket. Administrative law is assemblage of sensible constraints
and certifiable activity parameter, which are produced, and operationalised by the lawmaking
body and the courts to keep up and support a standard of law society. The foundation of
administrative law is perceived as, to check, misuse or detournment of administrative power,
to ensure the residents an unprejudiced assurance of their debate by authorities, to secure
them from unapproved infringement on their rights and intrigue, and to make the individuals
who practice open power responsible to the general population. As indicated by Prof.
Upendra Baxi, Administrative Law is an investigation of the pathology of intensity in a
creating society. Responsibility of the holders of open power for the ruled is consequently the
point of convergence of this plan is the essential desire in a standard of-law society is that
holders of open power and specialist must have the capacity to openly legitimize their activity
as lawfully substantial and socially insightful and just. Along these lines, administrative law
is one a player in this valiant venture of responsibility. Administrators go to surveys
occasionally, errant judges could be arraigned, what's more, civil servants are dependable to
the chosen government officials. These types of general responsibility turn out to be
exceptionally weak in any creating society in view of destitution absence of education what's
more, obliviousness of the majority. The investigation of administrative law presumes
extraordinary criticalness in any creating society for the improvement of more particular
types of duty.

Typically administrative law is characterized as that part of open law, which manages the
association and forces of administrative and semi administrative administrations and endorses
 Page |6

standards and principles by which an official activity is come to and assessed in connection to
singular freedom and opportunity. Administrative law is principally worries with the official
activity, or, in other words the standard making activity, adjudicatory activity, and principle
application activity. Alongside these, the activities that are accidental to the principle activity
are secured inside its examination. The accidental activities might be investigatory,
supervisory, warning, explanatory and prosecutory.

Administrative law additionally incorporates the control system by which the administrative
administrations are kept inside limits and made viable in the administration of the people.
This control system is in fact called the 'audit process'. A administrative activity is controlled
by courts through the writs of habeous corpus, mandamus, certiorari, mandamas and quo
warranto, courts practicing common legal powers through suits, orders and explanatory
activities, higher administrative specialists. Simple access to equity gives a powerful keep an
eye on bureaucratic adventurism in the activity of open control. On the off chance that the
entrance to equity is simple and fast it can dissuade administrative instrumentalities from
building up a disposition, which has been named as 'fly-now-paylater'. Access to Justice
incorporates procedural office like, expedient, reasonable and less formalistic, legitimate
guide, accessibility of supporters for open intrigue suit, scholarly limit of the gathering and
dynamic cooperation of the judges.

The exploration of administrative law isn't an end in itself, however an unfortunate

obligation. The central purpose of the investigation of administrative law is the compromise
of intensity with freedom. At the point when the administrative law process began ascending
after the passing of free enterprise at the introduction of the twentieth century, the weight on
the investigation of administrative law was on circumscription of administrative forces. The
Catch 22 of the twentieth century in the type of government is the productive development in
the forces of the State, which on the one hand is vital for the advancement of human freedom
and opportunity, yet then again debilitates to imperil singular opportunity. Thusly, the
administrative law is to develop certain standards and principles by which a perfect balance
between the forces of the administration and the manages of the individual freedom can be
supported.

Administrative law experts in England and India mostly concentrate on different parts of
legal control of administrative choices and activities. In the investigation of such subjects as
 Page |7

councils and enquires the accentuation is probably going to be between these foundations and
the courts as elective strategies for controlling administrative activity. These experts once in a
while dive into administrative process itself to think about how government divisions and
other administrative offices really work or how and why their techniques and structures vary
from the legal model of basic leadership or how the administrative procedure could be made
more viable and proficient by change from inside.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

 To know about the administrative action and remedies.

 To know what does it mean to exhaust administrative remedies.

HYPOTHESIS
The researcher prusmes that it is a constitutional remedy available to a person to bring his
complaint or grievance against any administrative action to the notice of court.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study is collected from the national and international journals and books
and publication from various websites and legislations, recent articles which
give importance and more information to designing trial of summon cases.

SOURCES OF DATA

The researcher will be relying on both primary and secondary sources to complete the
project.

1. Primary Sources : Books

2. Secondary Sources :Material Available on the internet.

 Page |8

LIMITATION OF THE PROJECT

The most important limitation for this project is the Time limit. The researcher has territorial
and monetary limitants in completing the project at hand morever, taking the time into
consideration, the researcher has to rely upon the doctrinal method of research.
 Page |9

1.ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Administrative activity is the residuary activity which is neither a legislative action nor a
judicial action. It is worried about the treatment of a specific circumstance and is without all
inclusive statement. It has no procedural commitments of gathering proof and gauging
contention. It depends on emotional fulfillment where choice depends on strategy and
practicality. It doesn't choose a privilege however it might influence a right. Notwithstanding,
it doesn't imply that the standards of normal equity can be disregarded totally when the expert
is working out "administrative forces". Except if the resolution gives generally, at least the
standards of normal equity should dependably be watched relying upon the reality
circumstance of each case.

On the off chance that A.K. Kraipak v. Association of India , the Court was of the view that
with the end goal to decide if the activity of the administrative expert is semi legal or
administrative, one needs to see the idea of intensity gave, to whom control is given, the
system inside which control is presented and the results. Administrative activity might be
statutory, having the power of law, or non statutory, without such lawful power. The greater
part of the administrative activity is statutory on the grounds that a rule or the Constitution
gives it a lawful power yet now and again it might be non-statutory, for example, issuing
headings to subordinates not having the power of law, but rather its infringement might be
chatted with disciplinary activity. In spite of the fact that all around administrative activity is
optional and depends on abstract fulfillment, notwithstanding, the administrative expert must
act decently, fair-mindedly and sensible.

Reason for Judicial Review of Administrative Actions

1. Illegality(jurisdictional error)

2. Irrationality

3. Procedural inappropriateness

4. Proportionality

The expression "jurisdiction" signifies "capacity to decide". The locale of the administrative
specialist relies on certainties the presence of which is important to the inception of
 P a g e | 10

10

procedures and without which the demonstration of the Court is a nullity. These are classified
"jurisdictional certainties". This ground of legal survey depends on the rule that
administrative experts should accurately comprehend the law and it constrains before any
move is made. Court may suppress aadministrative activity on the ground of ultra vires in
following circumstances.

Absence of Jurisdiction:

It would be an instance of "absence of locale" where the council or specialist has no ward at
all to pass a request. Court may survey a regulatory activity on the ground that the expert
practiced purview which did not have a place with it. This survey power might be practiced
entomb alia on following grounds:

I) That the law under which administrative specialist is established and practicing locale is
itself illegal.

ii) That the specialist isn't appropriately established as required by law.

iii) That the specialist has wrongly chosen a jurisdictional truth and along these lines accepted
purview which did not have a place with it.

In Rafiq Khan versus Province of U.P 1., Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, did not engage the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate to change the request of conviction and sentence gone by a
PanchayatAdalat. He could either subdue the whole request or drop the locale of the
PanchayatAdalat. The justice kept up the conviction of the blamed in regard for one of the
offenses just and subdued the conviction in regard of different offenses. The Allahabad High
Court suppressed the conviction in regard of different offenses by a writ of certiorari.

In R. versus minister of Transport2 the Minister had no capacity to repudiate a permit. The
request of the priest disavowing the permit, was in this way, held to be passed without locale
and subsequently ultra vires.

Excess of Jurisdiction:

1
AIR 1954 All 3
2
(1934) 1 KB 277
1
0
 P a g e | 11

11

This covers a circumstance wherein however expert at first had the purview yet surpassed it
and consequently its activities wind up illicit. This may occur under after circumstances:

I) Continue to practice ward regardless of event of an occasion removing locale.

ii) Entertaining issues outside its ambit.

In R versus Richmond upon Thames Council ex parte McCarthy and Stone Ltd 3., the
neighborhood arranging specialist executed a plan of charging 25 pound for casual discussion
between company officers and property designers. The House of Lords held that
inconvenience of the charge was unlawful. Such a charge was neither accidental to the
arranging capacity of the nearby specialist, nor could a charge be demanded on general
society without statutory expert. The gathering had confounded its forces and in like manner,
acted ultra vires.

Abuse of Jurisdiction:

Every single administrative power must be practiced decently, in compliance with common
decency for the reason it is given, in this way, if powers are manhandled it will be a ground
of legal audit. In the accompanying circumstances maltreatment of intensity may emerge:

Ill-advised reason

Regulatory power can't be utilized for the reason it was not given. In Attorney General versus
Fulham Corporation4, the expert was enabled under the rule to set up washhouses for the non-
business utilization of nearby inhabitants. The Corporation chose to open a clothing on a
business premise. The Corporation was held to have acted ultra vires the resolution.

Mistake obvious on the essence of the record :

A mistake is said to be obvious on the essence of the record on the off chance that it very well
may be learned only by inspecting the record and without needing response to other proof. In
Syed Yakoob versus K.S. Radhakrishnan5, the Supreme Court clarified, there would be an
instance of mistake of law evident on the substance of the record where the finish of law
recorded by a mediocre council is:

3
868 [1992] 2 A.C. 48
4
[1921] 1 CH. 440
5
AIR 1964 SC 477
1
1
 P a g e | 12

12

In view of an undeniable error of the applicable statutory arrangement,

1.In obliviousness of it,

2.In dismissal of it,

3.Explicitly established on reasons which aren't right in

law Non-thought of applicable material:

In practicing caution, a leader must have respect to pertinent issues and negligence
unessential issues. In R versus Somerset County Council, ex p Fewings 6 the nearby specialist
chose to boycott stag chasing ashore claimed by the gathering and assigned for recreational
purposes. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that in a few conditions, stag chasing could
really be prohibited. Creature welfare and social contemplations were significant issues to
consider.

In dishonesty and with bad faith

Where a choice – creator has acted unscrupulously by professing to have represented a

specific thought process when in actuality the choice was taken in light of another intention,
he might be said to have behaved inappropriately. In R versus Derbyshire County Council, ex
p Times Supplements7, the neighborhood training experts were under an obligation to
publicize opening in a way prone to convey it to the notice of people who are met all
requirements to fill the post. Articles distributed in that paper were incredulous of the
instruction expert. The gathering chose to quit publicizing opening in The Times in spite of
the way that these productions were perused by the best number of potential candidates. The
papers looked for legal survey. DC held that the gathering's choices had been made in
dishonesty. They had not been gone up against instructive grounds but rather were roused by
malevolence towards the paper.

Irrationality

A general guideline which has stayed unaltered is that optional power presented on
aadministrative expert is required to be practiced sensibly. A man in whom is vested a tact

6
1995] 3 All ER 20
7
(1991) COD 129
1
2
 P a g e | 13

13

must exercise his carefulness upon sensible grounds. A choice of the administrative expert
will be considered as nonsensical on the off chance that it is so over the top in its
disobedience to rationale or acknowledged standards of good standard that no sensible
individual, on the given actualities and conditions, could touch base at such a choice.
Silliness as a ground of legal survey was created by the Court in Associated Provincial
Picture House v. Wednesbury8, later came to be known as "Wednesbury test" to decide
'nonsensicalness' of a regulatory activity. The neighborhood specialist had the ability to
concede licenses for the opening of films subject to such conditions as the expert 'thought fit'
to force. The expert, while giving a Sunday permit, forced a condition that no kids younger
than 15 years ought to be conceded. The candidates contended that the burden of the
condition was nonsensical and ultra vires the company's forces. Expressing that the Court
ought not substitute its view for that of the partnership the court watched: impedance would
not be allowable except if it is discovered that the choice was illicit or experienced procedural
mistakes or was one which no sensible leader could, on the material before him and inside the
structure of law, have landed at it. The Court would consider whether important issues were
not considered or whether the activity was not genuine or whether the choice was ridiculous.

In Roberts versus Hopwood9, the board, in receiving an arrangement of paying higher wages
than the national normal for its laborers, was outlandish, for the attentiveness of the gathering
was restricted by law. It was not allowed to seek after a communist strategy to the detriment
of its rate payers.

In R v Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority ex parte S[xii], the Court of Appeal, rejecting
an interest from an application for legal survey, decided that the clinic's approach of leading
daily schedule and irregular hunts of patients without their assent was legal. The candidates
had asserted that the ability to inquiry couldn't be inferred into the Mental Health Act 1983,
and that, if such power existed, it was silly and its activity unlawfully chained the doctor's
facility's attentiveness since it was not expose to any special case or restorative grounds. The
Court of Appeal maintained the finding of a suggested intensity of hunt, deciding that it was
predictable with an 'undeniable and squeezing need' to empower the healing facility to satisfy
its essential capacity of treating patients and guaranteeing a sheltered and helpful condition
for the two patients and staff. Since the healing facility's arrangement was in light of a

8
(1948) 1 KB 223
9
(1925) AC 578
1
3
 P a g e | 14

14

legitimate concern for all, it must be allowed to abrogate restorative protests brought up in
individual cases.

A choice by a specialist may likewise be outlandish if conditions are appended to the choices
which are troublesome or difficult to perform.Where an expert settles on a choice which is to
a limited extent great, however to a limited extent terrible the court may either negate the
whole choice or disjoin the awful piece of the choice from the great.

The choice in Agricultural Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury
Mushrooms Ltd10 delineates the standard. There, the Training Board was under a required
statutory obligation to counsel certain associations and exchanges associations before
achieving a choice. The Board neglected to counsel the Mushroom Growers Association. The
court held that the choice was great, and could stay, in connection to those affiliations which
had been counseled, however terrible in connection to the Mushroom Growers Association,
and that the Board had an obligation to reevaluate their choice after discussions with the
Association. In applying this test court would not make a difference 'strict examination' and
would not pass judgment on ampleness or adequacy of the material except if basic rights are
damaged, and would not substitute its judgment with the judgment of the manager except if
the choice is unreasonable. On the off chance that the activity of the administrative expert
damages any of these standards court can suppress such activity as violative of Articles 14,
19 or 21 of the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court in Neha Jain versus College of Delhi 11, holding that that undoing of
examination and suspending the understudy for next exams as lopsided discipline for
embracing unreasonable means in the examination, substituted abrogation of just a single
paper as adequate discipline Since the fundamental prerequisite of article 14 is
reasonableness in real life of the State, and non-assertion basically and substance, being the
core of reasonable play, legal impedance with arrangement choice is passable:

On the off chance that the choice is appeared to be obviously discretionary, unfair or mala
fide12. On the off chance that it is observed to be outlandish or violative of any arrangement

10
[1972] 1 All ER 280
11
12
AIR 2002 Delhi 403
A.P.B.C. Sangh vs. J.S.V. Fed., (2006) 6 SCC 718
1
4
 P a g e | 15

15

of the Constitution or some other Statute 13. In the event that it very well may be said to
experience the ill effects of any legitimate sickness in the feeling of its being completely past
the extent of the control making power14. On the off chance that it is obviously whimsical or
subjective and not educated by any reason. Mindlessness connected to a choice which is so
ludicrous in its resistance of rationale that no sensible individual who had connected his brain
to the inquiry to be chosen would have landed at it.

Procedural Impropriety

Inability to agree to methodology set around resolution may negate a decision.Procedural

Impropriety is to envelop two territories: inability to watch rules set down in rule; and an
inability to watch the fundamental custom-based law standard of common equity. In
Bradbury v Enfield London Borough Council15, the Education Act 1944 gave that, if a
neighborhood instruction specialist means to set up new schools or stop to keep up existing
schools, see must be given to the priest, following which, open notice must be given with the
end goal to enable invested individuals to remark. The Council broke the necessity of open
notice and the offended parties looked for a directive. The Council asserted that instructive
disarray would happen on the off chance that they were required to consent to the procedural
prerequisites. That request met with little sensitivity in court.

In the Aylesbury Mushroom case16, the court decided that the statutory necessities of
discussion with associations or affiliations which spoke to generous quantities of individuals
couldn't be kept away from by counsel with the biggest delegate body of all agrarian
agricultural and ranger service industry, specialists – the Nation Farmers' Union. The Board
guaranteed that meeting with the Nation Farmers' Union included interview with all littler
delegate bodies; a case dismissed by the court. For genuine interview to happen as per law
there must be correspondence with the agent associations and the open door given of reacting
thereto, without which 'there can be no counsel'. In Aylesbury Mushroom, the Mushroom
Growers Association was not bound by the request, despite the fact that the request stayed
viable as against the individuals who were counseled. It is a central prerequisite of equity
that, when a man's advantages are influenced by a legal or regulatory choice, he or she has

13
K.C. Sharma v. Raj, AIR 2002 SC 2877
14
State of H.P. vs. Padma Dev, AIR 2002 SC 2477
16
Agricultural Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd (1972)
1
5
 P a g e | 16

15
[1967] 3 All ER 434

16
Agricultural Horticultural and Forestry Industry Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd (1972)
1
5
 P a g e | 17

16

the open door both to know and to see any charges made, and to settle on portrayals to the
leader to meet the claims. The standards of normal equity which are forced by the courts
include two components:

Audi alterampartem (hear the two sides)

Nemojudex in causasua (there ought to be a nonattendance of predisposition with no

individual being a judge in their very own motivation).

The substance of equity lies in a reasonable hearing. The standard against predisposition is
strict: it isn't important to demonstrate that genuine inclination existed; the merest appearance
or probability of inclination will get the job done. The doubt of inclination must, be that as it
may, be a sensible one.

In Pinochet case17 removal procedures against the previous Chilean Head of State were tested
on the premise that one of the Law Lords, Lord Hoffmann, had joins with Amnesty
International, the altruistic weight amass which takes a shot at benefit of political detainees
around the globe, which had been permitted to display proof to the court. It was
acknowledged that there was no genuine predisposition with respect to Lord Hoffmann, yet
there were worries that the general population discernment may be that a senior judge was
one-sided. Thus, the procedures were relinquished and reheard by another seat of seven
judges.

The courts have for some time been battling with the qualification among 'legal' and
'administrative' works trying to bring the regularly extending administration of government
divisions under legal control. Two lines of thought were obvious. The primary underlined the
refinement between a body which was practicing powers under prohibitive tenets and a body
which was deliberated with a wide proportion of administrative optional power. The second
line of thought put incredible weight on the nonattendance of any obvious refinement among
legal and regulatory capacities, viewing the previous as however a specific type of the last
mentioned.

Edge v Baldwin18represents an exemplary case which uncovers legal emphasis on procedural

reasonableness independent of the kind of body deciding an inquiry. Edge, the Chief

17
(1999) 48 I.C.L.Q.
18
[1964] AC 40
1
6
 Page |7

17

Constable of Brighton, had been suspended from obligation following charges of scheme to
discourage the course of equity. In spite of Ridge having been cleared of any claims against
him, the Judge made remarks which were condemning of Ridge's direct. In this way, Ridge
was expelled from the power. Edge was not welcomed to go to the gathering at which the
choice to expel him was come to, in spite of the fact that he was later give a chance to show
up before the advisory group which affirmed its before choice. Edge application

1
7
 Page |8

18

2.CLASSIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Administrative action is a comprehensive term and defies exact definition. In modern times
the administrative process as a by product of intensive form of government cuts across the
traditional classification of governmental powers and combines into one all the powers which
were traditionally exercised by three different organs of the State. The administration, is the
meeting point of the three types of governmental functions, namely legislative, judicial and
administrative. Usually, the executive performs the reside of all those functions which are not
vested in the other two branches of the government i.e. the legislature and the judiciary. In
the administrative process, all the three functions, which are traditionally vested in the three
different organs of government are telescoped into one single authority. 19 Classification of
administrative action for the purpose of determining the procedure to be followed or the
remedy available may not be necessary in view of the fact that a good deal of rigidity in this
regard has disappeared. Certiorari was available only against judicial bodies and therefore, it
was necessary to determine the nature of an administrative authority and its function. Rules
of natural justice were attracted only to quasi-judicial authorities and therefore dichotomy
between quasi-judicial and administrative developed. But these constraints now have
disappeared and therefore these discussions have become less relevant. Classification even
now may be necessary for determining the scope of judicial review and ground on which an
administrative action can be challenged. Judicial review of legislative action is much more
restricted than that of other administrative actions, for example, legislative action cannot be
challenged on the ground that the subordinate legislation has not been made after giving a
hearing to those whose interests are likely to be prejudiced by rules, regulations etc.
Similarly, mandamus cannot be issued to compel the executive to perform its legislative
function in fact, no mandamus can issued in respect of legislative function. There is a general
agreement among the writers or administrative law lawyers that any attempt of classifying
administrative action on any conceptual basis is not only impossible but also futile. However,
the fiction of ‘quasi’ has accordingly been invented to distinguish these acts of the
administrative authorities from the acts of the legislature and the judiciary. Thus, ‘quasi’ is a
smooth cover which we draw over our confusion as we might use a counterpane to conceal a

19
Schwartz, Administrative Law (1976) p. 31.
 Page |9

19

disordered bed.20 Even then a student of administrative law is compelled to delve into the
field of classification because the present day law especially relating to judicial review freely
employs conceptual classification of administrative action. Thus, speaking generally, an
administrative action, can be classified into three categories: 1. Quasi-legislative action or
rule-making action; 2. Quasi-judicial action or Rule-decision action; and 3. Purely
Administrative action or Rule application action. 1.Quasi-legislative action. legislature is the
law-making organ of any State. In some written constitution like the American and Australian
Constitutions,the law-making power is expressly vested in the legislature. However, in the
Indian Constitution though this power is not so expressly vested in the legislature, yet the
combined effect of Articles 107 to 111 and196 to 201 is that the law-making power can be
exercised for the union by parliament and for the states by the respective state legislature. It is
the intention of the constitution makers that this law-making power must be exercised by
those bodies alone in whom this power is vested. But in the Twentieth Century today these
legislative bodies cannot give that quality and quantity of laws which are required for the
efficient functioning of a modern intensive form of government. Therefore, the delegation of
law-making power to the administration is a compulsive necessity. When any administrative
authority exercises the law-making power delegated to it by the legislature , it is known the
rule-making action of the administration or quasilegislative action. When an instrument of a
legislative nature is made by an authority in exercise of power delegated or conferred by the
legislature it is called ‘subordinate legislation’ it is subordinate in the sense that the powers of
the authority which makes it are limited by the statute which conferred the power and,
consequently it is valid only in so far as it keeps within those limits, whereas a law made by
legislature is not limited by any law made by any other body, except where there is a written
constitution imposing limitations upon the legislature as in Indian. The makers of subordinate
legislation, in other words, may be its immediate authority, but its ultimate authority is a
superior legislature which conferred the power to make the legislation. , Quasi-legislative is
the function of subordinate legislation or that of making rules, regulations and other statutory
instruments to fill in the details of legislative enactments in order to make the execution of
the laws possible. Quasi legislative action of the administration partakes the characteristics
which a normal legislative action possesses. Such characteristics may be generality,
prospectivity and behaviour which bases action on policy consideration and gives a right or a
disability. These characteristics are not without exception. In some cases, administrative rule-
making action may be particularized retroactive and based on evidence. According to
1
9
 P a g e | 10

20

Chinnappa Reddy, j. a legislative action has four characteristics: (i) Generality; (ii)
prospectivity; (iii) public interest; and (iv) right and obligations flow from it.It is on the basis
of these characteristics that one can i differentiate between quasi-legislative and quasi-
judicial action. A quasi-judicial action in contradiction to a quasi-legislative action is
particularly based on the facts of the case and declares a preexisting right. However, in
certain situations, like wage or rate fixing, it is not capable of easy differentiation. In express
New Paper v. Union of India, The supreme court left the question open as to whether the
function of the wage Commission under the working Journalists’ (Conditions of Service) Act,
1956 is quasi-legislative function or quasi-judicial function. However, the delegation to the
government of power to fix the price of levy sugar was held to be quasi-legislative
functions.From this it appears that the distinction between legislative and administrative
function is difficult in theory and impossible in practice. According to wade : “They are easy
enough to distinguish at the extremities of the spectrum : an Act of Parliament is legislative
and a deportation order is administrative. But in between is a wide area where either label can
be used according to taste, for example, where Ministers make.affecting large In the same
Ministers’ Powers which was appointed distinguished between administrative and quasi-
review the ground that where the former is a process of particular acts or of making decision
involving the application of general rules to particular cases, the latter is the process of
formulating a general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases and usually for
future operation.29 > It is, no doubt, true that any attempt to draw a distinct line between
legislative and administrative function is difficult in theory and impossible in practice.
Though difficult, it is necessary that the line must be drawn as different legal rights and
consequences may ensue30 as Schwartz31 said, “If a particular function is termed
'legislative’ or ‘rule-making’ rather than judicial or ‘adjudication’, it may have substantial
effects upon the parties concerned. If the function is treated as legislative in nature, there is
no right to a notice and hearing unless a statute expressly requires them.32 In the leading case
of Bates v. Lords Haiisman Megarry, Jhas observed that “the rules of natural justice do not
run in the sphere of legislation, primary or delegated.” Wade has also said, “there is no right
to be heard before the making of legislation, whether primary or delegated unless it is
provided by statute" Though the rules of natural justice do not apply to legislative action yet
reasonableness and fair play in action must be observed as Article 14 of the Constitution
equally applies to legislative actions. Quasi-legislative actions are controlled by Parliament
and the courts. 2. Quasi Judicial Action. Today the bulk of the decisions which affect a
2
0
 Page |1

21

private individual come not from courts but from administrative' agencies exercising
adjudicatory powers. The reason seems to be that since administrative decision making is also
a byproduct of the intensive form of government, the traditional judicial system cannot give
to the people that quantity and quality of justice which is required in a welfare State. In some
jurisdictions the term ‘quasi-judicial’ is used to denote administrative, adjudicatory or
decision-making process. But because the term ‘quasi-judicial’ is vague and difficult to
define, it is falling in disuse. Therefore, the use of this term is being carefully avoided.
Administrative decision-making may be defined as a power to perform acts administrative in
character, but requiring incidentally some characteristics of judicial traditions. On the basis of
this definition, the following functions of the administration have been held to be quasi-
judicial functions :-

1. Disciplinary proceedings against students.

2. Disciplinary proceedings against an employee for misconduct.

3. Confiscation of goods under the Sea Customs Act, 1878.

4. Cancellation, suspension, revocation or refusal to renew licence or permit by licensing

authority.

5. Determination of citizenship.

6. Determination of statutory disputes.

7. Power to continue the detention or seizure of goods beyond a particular period. Refusal to
grant 'no objection certificate’ under the Bombay Cinemas (Regulations) act, 1953.

8. Forfeiture of pensions and gratuity. Authority granting or refusing permission for

retrenchment.

Grant of permit by Regional Transport Authority. Attributes of administrative decision-

making action or quasi-judicial action and the distinction between judicial, and administra-
tive action. The Donoughmore committee on Minister’s powers (1932) analysed the
characteristics of a 'true judicial decision’ and summed up the attributes, the presence or
absence of which stamped a decision as administrative decision-making or quasi-judicial

2
1
 Page |2

22

action. The Committee was of the view that a true judicial decision presupposes a lis between
two or more parties and then involves four requisites :-

(1) Presentation of the case.

(2) Ascertainment of questions of fact by means of evidence given by the parties.

(3) Ascertainment of questions of law on the basis of submission of legal arguments.

(4) A decision which disposes of the whole matter by applying the law to the facts. A quasi-
judicial decision involves the first two determinants, may or may involve the third but never
involves the fourth determinant, because the place of the fourth determinant is in fact taken
by administrative action, the character of which is determined by the minister’s free choice
involving expediency, discretion and policy considerations. Decisions which are
administrative stand on a wholly different footing from quasi-judicial as well as from judicial
decisions. In the case of administrative decisions, there is no legal obligation to consider and
weigh submission and arguments, or to collect any evidence, or to solve any issue. The
grounds upon which the action is taken and the procedure for taking the action are left
entirely to the discretion of the authority. This approach of the Committee seems fallacious
because the judges cannot be regarded as mere norm-producing slot machines, they do take
into consideration policy, socio-economic and political philosophy, expediency and exercise
discretion while deciding a case. In the Twentieth Century, it is admitted at all hands that the
judiciary is like any other branch of the government because litigation like legislation and
administration is a stage in the accommodation of interests. On the other hand in certain areas
of administrative adjudication, like tax, the administration applies law to the facts in the same
manner as sometimes the judges do. Therefore, it is wrong to suggest that any admixture of
policy in the policy in the virgin purity of a judicial determination immediately reduces it to
the rank of quasi-judicial decision. As the English ‘law and policy’ determinant is devoid of
sufficient classification, in the same manner the American ‘positionof-the-judge’ approach is
not without exception. In the American approach, a court is where a judge sits as arbiter-
impartial and with no interest in the suit between the two parties. The institution and
presentation are the responsibilities of the parties. In an administrative decision, on the other
hand, the judge is rarely one who is disinterested in the case and sits detached like a judge.
One may be tempted to argue and rightly so, that this classification matrix would also fail in
the case of independent tribunals where the presiding officer does sit in judge like
2
 Page |3

23

detachment. Therefore, only that classification determinant can be reasonable which is

institutional rather than functional. There are administrative agencies exercising adjucatory
powers which are as full courts : it is only the will of the legislature that these are not
classified as courts. However, it does not mean that because purple is the confused mixture of
red and blue, so there is no distinction between red and blue.Administrative decision making
action is not required to follow the elaborate judicial procedure it is sufficient if, in the
absence of any statutory requirement, the action is rendered by following the minimum
procedure of natural justice. There was a time when the view prevailed that the rules of
natural justice have application to a quasi-judicial proceeding as distinguished from an
administrative proceeding. The distinguishing feature of a quasi-judicial, proceeding in this
behalf is that the authority concerned is required by law under which it is functioning to act
judicially. Duty to act judicially was spelt out in Rex v. Electricity Commissioner by Lord
Atkins thus : “Where ever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions
affecting the rights of the subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, acts in excess of its
legal authority, they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King’s Bench Division.”
Lord Hewart C.J., in Rex v. Legislative Committee of the Church Assembly read this
observation of Lord Atkin to mean that the duty to act judicially should be an additional
requirement existing independently of the authority to determine questions affecting the right
of the subject’s something super added to it. This gloss placed by Lord Heart, C.J. on the
dictum of Lord Atkins, to use the words of Krishna Iyer, . bedevilled the law for a
considerable time and stultified the growth of the doctrine of natural justice. Therefore, the
court held that the duty to act judicially need to be superadded and it may be spelt out from
the nature of the power conferred, the manner of exercising it and its impact on the rights of
the person affected. The court was constrained in every case that came up before it to make a
search for the duty to act judicially, sometimes from tenuous material and sometimes the
service of the statute and this led to oversubtlety and over-refinement resulting in confusion
and uncertainty in the law. In India the judicial search for the duty to act judicially was
sometimes made within the corners of the statute under which the authority exercised power,
and sometimes in the tenous material, remote and extraneous, such as, lis inter partis
including proposition and opposition.Implications arising from the nature of the functions and
the rights affected thereby. This doctrinal approach of the Courts in India and England not
only made the law confused and uncertain but also eluded justice in many cases. However, in
England, a turning point came with Ridge v. Baldwin, when Lord Reid pointed out that the
2
 Page |4

24

gloss of Lord Hewart was based on misunderstanding of the observations of Lord Atkins.
Lord Reid observed : “If Lord Hewart meant that it is never enough that a body has a duty to
determine what the rights of the individual should be, but that there must always be
something more to impose on it a duty to act judicially, then that appears to me impossible to
reconcile with the earlier authorities.Lord Reid held that the duty to act judicially must arise
from the very nature of the function intended to be performed and it need not be shown to be
superadded. Krishna Iyer, J. quoted Prof. Clark from his article on ‘Natural Justice, substance
and Shadow”, who is of the.,view that the observation of Lord Reid has restored light to an
area ‘benighted by the narrow conceptualism of the previous decade.’ This development of
law is traceable in India also where the Supreme Court even earlier than Ridge v. Baldwin
was of the view that if there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, the
duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of power. In fact, the foundation of applying
natural justice and administrative actions had been laid in the dissent of Justice Subba Rao in
Radheyshyam Kare v. State of M.P., is significant to note when he held that “In competency
carries a stigma with it and what is more derogatory to the reputation of the members of the
Committee than to be stigmatized as incompetent to discharge their statutory duties? Would it
be reasonable to assume that public men in a democratic country are allowed to be
condemned unheard?” This dissent became strikingly pronounced in A.K. Kraipak v. Union
of India63 In this case the Supreme court held that though the action of making selection for
government service is administrative, yet the selection committee is under a duty to act
judicially. The Court observed that the dividing line between an administrative power and
quasi-judiciai power is quite thin and being gradually obliterated. In D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A.
Industries Ltd. the Supreme Court further observed that the distinction between quasi-judicial
and administrative action which had become thin is now totally eclipsed and obliterated.
Proceeding a Step further the Supreme Court clearly held in CB Boarding and Lodging
House v. State of Mysore66 that it is not necessary to classify an action of the administrative
authority as quasi-judicial or administrative because the administrative authority is bound to
follow the principles of natural justice in any case. In this case, the question was whether the
power to fix a minimum wage under the Minimum Wages Act is quasi-judicial or
administrative. 3. Purely Administrative Action At the very outset, it has been pointed out
that the expression administrative act or’ function’ is a comprehensive expression,
comprising three different categories namely, quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial and purely
administrative. The expression as used in this work, therefore refer to those acts or functions
2
 Page |5

25

of administrative authorities which are neither legislative nor adjudicative in character. In

Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, speaking for the Supreme Court, Mukherjea C.J. observed
that “It may not be possible to frame an exhaustive definition of what executive function
means and implies. Ordinary the executive power connotes the residue of governmental
functions that remains after legislative and judicial functions are taken away” Thus,
administrative functions are those functions which are neither legislative nor judicial in
character. But a general distinction is made in quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial and purely
administrative actions as certain legal consequences flow from this distinction. While a quasi
legislative act done by the administration consists in making rules regulations by laws and the
like having general application which simulate a statute made by the legislature itself, a
purely administrative act is concerned with the treatment of a particular situation. Thus, a
distinction often made between legislative and administrative acts is that a legislative act is
the creation and promulgation of a general rule of conduct without reference to particular
cases; an administrative act cannot be exactly defined but it includes the adoption of a policy,
the making and issue of a specific directions, and the application of a general rule to a
particular case in accordance with the requirements of policy of expediency or administrative
practice. The following legal consequences flow from this distinction: a) In certain
circumstances an order has to be published as a statutory instrument if it is of a legislative
nature but not if it is of an executive (i.e. administrative) character. But this test adopted for
discriminating between the legislative and executive often appear to be pragmatic (is it in the
public interest that this order should be published?) rather than conceptual. b) It has generally
been assumed that the courts will not award certiorari to .quash a legislative order Now that
the courts no longer insist upon the need to characterize administrative decisions reviewable
by certiorari as judicial in nature, it would perhaps be surprising, if they were to exclude from
reach of the remedy administrative decisions of a legislative nature. c) Courts may declare
administrative act to be invalid for manifest unreasonableness, but it is not so clear that they
have jurisdiction to hold a statutory instrument to be invalid for unreasonableness per se.
However bye laws, a form of delegated legislation, have always been reviewable for manifest
unreasonableness. d) Authority to sub delegate legislative powers will be held to be implied
only in the most exceptional circumstances. The courts are somewhat less reluctant to read
into a grant of administrative authority to sub-delegate. It is, therefore, necessary to determine
what type of functions the administrative authority performs, e) The duty to give reason for
their decision does not extend to decisions in connection with the orders or schemes of a
2
 Page |6

26

legislative and not of an executive character. Though the distinction between quasi-judicial
and administrative action has become blurred, yet it does not mean that there is no distinction
between the two. If two persons are wearing a similar coat, it does not mean that there is no
difference between them. The difference between quasi-judicial and administrative action
may not be of much practical consequence today but it may still be relevant in determining
the measure of natural justice applicable in a given situation. In A.K. Kraipak v. Union, the
Court was of the view that in order to determine whether the action of the administrative
authority is quasi-judicial or administrative, one has to see the nature of power conferred, to
whom power is given, the framework within which power is conferred, and the
consequences. In State of AP. V. S.M.K. Parasurama Gurukul, replying to the question
whether the power of the government to appoint trustees under Section 15 of the A.P.
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments act, 1966 is quasi-judicial or
administrative, the court held the function as administrative and laid down that if there is lis
between the parties, and the opinion is to be formed on objective satisfaction, the action is
quasi-judicial, otherwise administrative. In the same manner in G.G. Patel v. Gulam
Abbas73, the Court came to the conclusion that since there is nothing in the Act to show that
the collector has to act judicially or in conformity with the recognised judicial norms and as
there is also nothing requiring the Collector to determine question affecting the right of any
party, the function of the Collector in giving or withholding permission of transfer of land to
a non-agriculturist under Section 63(11) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act,
1947 is administrative. The Delhi High Court applying the same parameters held that the
function of the Company Law Board granting authority to shareholders to file a petition in
the High Court is an administrative and not a quasi-judicial function. Moving forward in the
same direction the Supreme Court further held that the function of the Government under
Sections 10,12(5) and 11 - A to make or refuse a reference to the Industrial Tribunal and the
power to grant or refuse a licence are administrative in nature. Therefore, administrative
action is the residuary action which is neither legislative nor judicial. It is concerned with the
treatment of a particular situation and is devoid of generality. It has no procedural obligations
of collecting evidence and weighing argument, it is based on subjective satisfaction where
decision is based on policy and expediency. It does not decide a right though it may affect a
right. However, it does not mean that the principles of natural justice can be ignored
completely when the authority is exercising "administrative powers”. Unless the statute
provides otherwise, a minimum of principles of natural justice must always be observed
2
 Page |7

27

depending on the fact situation of each case. The new judicial trend is to insist that even if an
authority is not acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, it still must act fairly. The Krishna Tiles &
Potteries (P) Ltd. v. Company Law Board, ILR (1979) Del. Ram Avtar Sharma v. Union of
India, (1985)3 SCC 189; AIR 1985 SC 915. State of U.P. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, (1985)3 SCC
131; AIR 1985 SC 1108. 61 courts have propounded the proposition that whether the
function being discharged by the administration may be regarded as ‘quasi judicial’ or
‘administrative’, it must nevertheless be discharged with fairness.The courts are increasingly
shedding the use of the terms ‘quasi-judicial’ and ‘natural justice’ and instead adopting the
concept of fairness. The advantage of the new judicial trend is that procedural fairness can be
imposed on all decision-making bodies without having to characterise their functions as
quasi-judicial. Fairness or fair play has thus become the norm rather than an exception, in
administrative process at the present day. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Bhagwati, J.,
has emphasized that natural justice is great “humanising principle” intended to invent law
with fairness and to secure justice and, over the years, it has grown into a widely pervasive
rule affecting large areas of administration. The soul of natural justice is “fair play in action”
and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world. This
being the test of applicability of the doctrine of natural justice, there can be no distinction
between a quasi-judicial and an administrative function for this purpose. The aim of both
administrative inquiry and quasi-judicial inquiry is to arrive at a just decision and “if a rule of
natural justice is calculated to secure justice, or, to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of
justice, it is difficult to see why it should be applicable to quasi-judicial inquiry and not to
administrative inquiry. It must logically apply td both. The concept of fairness has become a
much more widely applicable procedural requirement. However, in spite of great expansion
in the See Infant K(H), (1967)1 All E.R. 226. Sachs, L.J., in Pergamon Press, (1970)3 All
E.R. 535, 54142, stated : "....it is .... not necessary to label the proceeding 'judicial; 'quasi-
judicial; 'administrative; 'investigatory'; it is the characteristics of the proceedings that matter
not the precise compartments into which they fail....” AIR 1978 SC 597 at 626. 62 range of
the administration where fair procedure is applied, the two concepts-quasi-judicial and
natural justice-occur quite often in judicial opinions. For certain purposes the concept of
quasi-judicial is still relevant. It therefore seems that the two concepts, ‘fairness" and “quasi-
judicial” would continue to hold the field. It is also possible to argue on the basis of case law,
that whereas those acting in a quasi-judicial manner have to observe the principles of natural
justice those acting administratively have only to act fairly. Such a view distinguishing
2
 Page |8

28

between administrative and quasi-judicial will retain the distinction between fairness and
natural justice. Such a distinction may be justified on the ground that certain bodies for
example tribunals have to follow more formal procedures, than a purely administrative body.
No exhaustive list of such actions may be drawn; however, a few may be noted for the sake
of clarity: (1) Issuing directions to subordinate officers not having the force of law;(2)
Making a reference to a tribunal for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes act. (3)
Interment, externment and deportation. (4) Granting or withholding sanction to file a suit
under Section 55(2) of the Muslim Wakf Act, 1954. (5) Granting or withholding sanction by
the Advocate General under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code; (6) Fact-finding
action.84 Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1942. State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy,
AIR 1953 SC 53. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27. Abdul Kasim v.Mohd.
Dawood, AIR 1961 Mad. 244. A.K. Bhaskar v. Adovate-General, AIR 1962 Ker. Narayanlal
v. Mistry, AIR 1961 SC 29. (7) Requisition, acquisition and allotment. (8) Entering names in
the surveillance register of the police. (9) Power of the Chancellor under the U.P. State
Universities Act, 1973 to take decision on the recommendation of the Selection Committee in
case of disagreement of the Executive Council with such recommendation. (10) Functions of
a selection Committee. (11) Decision to extend time for anti-dumping investigation.
Administrative action may be statutory, having the force of law, or non-statutory, devoid of
such legal force. The bulk of the administrative action is statutory because a stature or the
Constitution gives it a legal force but in some cases it may be nonstatutory, such as issuing
directions to subordinates not having the force of law, but its violation may be visited with
disciplinary action. Though by and large administrative action is discretionary and is based
on subjective satisfaction, however, the administrative authority must act fairly, impartially
and reasonably.

8
 Page |9

29

3.JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS IN INDIA

Origin of Judicial Review

The doctrine of judicial review has acquired different nuances during the course of its
evolution in UK, USA, and India. Its origins can be traced to UK which has no written
Constitution. It has become firmly established in USA with a written Constitution
establishing a federal polity. However, the doctrine reached its culmination under the Indian
Constitution when the Supreme Court of India bestowed on judicial review the widest ambit
and amplitude in the casus célèbre Keshvanand Bharti v. State of Kerala . The very old case
on judicial review in England in case Dr. Bonham’s Chief Justice Coke stated that when an
Act of Parliament was against common right or reason, repugnant or impossible to perform,
the Common Law would control it and adjudge such Act to be void. In the Historic case
Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court of America made it clears that Court had the power
of judicial review, Chief Justice George Marshall observed:

“Certainly all those who have framed the written Constitution contemplate them as forming
the fundamental and paramount law of the nations and theory of every such government must
be that the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution is void”.

Meaning of Judicial Review

‘Judicial review’ may be defined as a “Court’s power to review the actions of others branches
of government, especially the Court’s power to invalidate legislative and executive actions as
being unconstitutional”.

Broadly speaking, judicial review in India deals with these aspects:

I. Judicial Review of Legislative Actions
II. Judicial Review of Administrative Actions
III. Judicial Review of Judicial Actions

We are dealing with second aspects, namely Judicial Review of Administrative Actions.
9
 P a g e | 10

30

What are Administrative Actions?

Administrative action is the residuary action which is neither legislative nor judicial. It is
concerned with the treatment of a particular situation and is devoid of generality. It has no
procedural obligations of collecting evidence and weighing argument. It is based on
subjective satisfaction where decision is based on policy and expediency. It does not decide a
right though it may affect a right. However, it does not mean that the principles of natural
justice can be ignored completely when the authority is exercising “administrative powers”.
Unless the statute provides otherwise, a minimum of the principles of natural justice must
always be observed depending on the fact situation of each case.

In case A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India , the Court was of the view that in order to
determine whether the action of the administrative authority is quasi-judicial or
administrative, one has to see the nature of power conferred, to whom power is given, the
framework within which power is conferred and the consequences.

Administrative action may be statutory, having the force of law, or non statutory, devoid of
such legal force. The bulk of the administrative action is statutory because a statute or the
Constitution gives it a legal force but in some cases it may be non-statutory, such as issuing
directions to subordinates not having the force of law, but its violation may be visited with
disciplinary action. Though by and large administrative action is discretionary and is based
on subjective satisfaction, however, the administrative authority must act fairly, impartially
and reasonable.

Grounds for Judicial Review of Administrative Actions

1. Illegality
2. Irrationality
3. Procedural impropriety
4. Proportionality

3
0
 Page |1

31

Present Scenario in India over Administrative Actions

Judicial review is central in dealing with the malignancy in the exercise of power. However,
in the changed circumstances of socio-economic development in the country the Court is
emphasizing ‘self restraint’. Unless the administrative action is violative of law or the
Constitution or is arbitrary or mala fide, Courts should not interfere in administrative
decisions . Moving in this direction, the apex Court in Sidheswar Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd. v. Union of India, was of the opinion that normally the Court should not
interfere in policy matter which is within the purview of the government unless it is shown to
be contrary to law or inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution.

Therefore, it was held that grant of concession, exemption, incentive and rebate is a matter of
policy with the government under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and hence, Court should not
interfere unless found violative of law and Constitution. The Court was quick to add that this
principle of judicial review is not a matter of exclusion of the power of judicial review but of
judicial “self-restraint” . Before us there are various instances where serious administrative
actions lapses in government department. First important case is coal scam in which the
figure to be around 1,060,000 crore (US$192.92 billion).

It is called by the media as the Mother of all Scams . the Comptroller & Auditor General's
draft report titled 'Performance Audit Of Coal Block Allocations' says the government has
extended "undue benefits", totaling a mind-boggling Rs 10.67 lakh crore, to commercial
entities by giving them 155 coal acreages without auction between 2004 and 2009. In 2005
the Expert Committee on Coal Sector Reforms provided recommendations on improving the
allocation process, and in 2010 the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act
(MMDR Act), 1957 Amendment Bill was enacted, providing for coal blocks to be sold
through a system of competitive bidding. Numbers of allegations were made on Congress and
BJP leaders such as Subodh Kant Sahay, Tourism Minister in the UPA government, Congress
MP, Naveen Jindal's, Ajay Sancheti's SMS Infrastructure Ltd.

He is a BJP Rajya Sabha MP and is believed to be in close relation with Nitin Gadkari. At the
3
1
 Page |2

32

end of June 2012, Coal Ministry decided to form an Inter-Ministerial Group (IMG), to decide
on either de-allocation or forfeiting the Bank Guarantees (BG) of the companies that did not
develop allotted coal blocks. September 2012 Coalgate reaches Supreme Court of India
Advocate M L Sharma filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking
to cancel the allotment of 194 coal blocks on grounds of arbitrariness, illegality,
unconstitutionality and public interest. Defending the CAG, a Supreme Court bench of
Justices R M Lodha and A R Dave dismissed the Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman’s
objections that petition relies heavily on the CAG report by saying, the CAG is a
"Constitutional authority" and that its report is "Not a piece of trash".

Moreover, the Court ordered the government to inform it of reasons for not following the
2004 policy of "competitive bidding" for coal block allocation. Another example is 2G
Spectrum (Second Generation of Telecom, and Radio Waves,) case where same mistake was
revised by Telecom Ministry of Government of India. 2G licenses issued to private telecom
players at throwaway prices in 2008. These procedures were not followed, Rules changed
after the game had begun , cut-off date for applications advanced by a week, licenses issued
on a first-come-first-served basis, no proper auction process followed, no bids invited. DMK
chief M Karunanidhi's daughter and MP Kanimozhi who has been named by the CBI as a co-
conspiratorwithARaja.

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India said the entire process of spectrum allocation
was undertaken in an arbitrary manner. One more action of administrative misuse is
regarding to slap the charge of sedition under Section 124A of Indian Penal Code 1860 on
Binayak Sen and Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi. The controversy arose with the arrest of Binayak
Sen a pediatrician by profession, public health specialist and an activist was at receiving end.
On 24th December 2010, Additional Sessions Court and District Court Judge, Raipur found
that Binayak Sen guilty of sedition for helping Maoists in their fight that lead to widespread
protest in the country to save Binayak from the clutch of vested administrative authorities.

There is feeling among people of all walks of life, in the Democracy, everyone who is
dissatisfied with the government has the right to create disaffection against it and wanted to
oust the government at next general election 2014. In fact, it is the Constitutional right of
every Citizen to expose the misdeeds of government and work towards throwing it out of
3
 Page |3

33

power without doing any violence. The apex Court convinced on records placed by Defence
Counsel of Binayak Sen that no sedition case made out against Sen.
In this view, Supreme Court granted bail by saying trial Court would impose certain
conditions on bail. Mumbai police dropped sedition charges against Aseem Trivedi in view of
widespread protest by people. Another instance of excessive use of administrative actions is
that two girl posted their comments regarding questioning the shutdown due to demise of
Shiv Sena Chief Bal Thackeray in Mumbai. Her comment “People like Thackeray are born
and die daily and one should not observe a ‘bandh’ (city shutdown) for that ,” Mumbai police
arrest them on direction of Shiv Sena members, charged them of hurting religious sentiments,
and Information of Technology Act 2000. But after few days due to pressure mounted by
public in Country, police dropped all charge against these two girls. On such action state
government woke up to undo the mistake taken by Mumbai police, suspends police officer
and constable who charged them and shift district magistrate who heard their case by state
government.

3
3
 Page |4

34

4. REMEDIES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

Here five sorts of writs are accessible for keeping a check on administrative activities under
Article of 32, and Article of 226 of Constitution of India.

Habeas Corpus

This writ truly signifies "Have the body" this writ is issue to anchor the arrival of individual
from illicit confinement or without lawful avocation, its arrangements with individual right of
opportunity. In straightforward words Court coordinate the individual and even specialist
who has kept individual to bring such individual under the steady gaze of Court with the goal
that Court may choose the legitimacy, defense, ward of such detainment. It is to be
documented by any individual.

Mandamus writ

It implies that "To direction the general population expert" to play out its open obligation in
India. It is optional cure even as every one of the five writs are optional cure in nature. Court
has full capacity to decline to engage a writ request. This writ isn't lie on president,
representative, state lawmaking bodies, private people or any enrolled body.

Quo Warranto

It is old customary law cure. It is utilized against a gatecrasher or usurper of open office.
Truly signifies "What is your position". Court coordinates the concerned individual that by
what expert he holds the workplace. The Court may remove a man from the workplace in the
event that he finds that he isn't qualified for get such office.

Prohibition

Preclusion is a remarkable right writ of aversion; it looks to anticipate Courts, Tribunals,

Quasi-legal specialists and officers from surpassing their purview. Principle protest of this
writ is to keep the infringement of locale. It depends on "Aversion is superior to fix".

Certiorari

It manages a technique to bring the record of subordinate Court under the steady gaze of the
predominant Court for remedy of locale or blunder of law submitted by them. In basic word
 Page |5

35

if any mediocre Court chose the case past its forces than Apex Court and High Courts remedy
the mistake by issuing this writ. Prior it was utilized for criminal issues yet later on it was
begun to use in common cases as well. Justification for this writ are (an) abundance or
inability to practice the ward (b) infringement of regular equity guidelines, for example, right
of notice and hearing (c) infringement of key rights or statutory arrangements of laws. (c)
Finding of realities which no individual would have come to the end.

+
 Page |6

36

5.CONCLUSION

There is a general consensus amongst writers and lawyers alike that any attempt at classifying
administrative functions on any conceptual basis is redundant. But sometimes even an
administrative lawyer has to classify action into administrative, legislative, judicial and quasi-
judicial. The fiction of quasi has been conveniently created to distinguish acts of the three
organs. Although scholars decry such dichotomy as too artificial and superficial, such
classifications are necessary especially between purely administrative and quasi-judicial.
Also the concept of fair-play in administrative actions has discarded the distinction between
the two, the fact still remains that in the present state of administrative law requires labelling
of the functions and actions.

Judicial review of administration is, it could be said, the core of regulatory law. It is
absolutely the most suitable technique for inquisitive into the lawful capability of an open
specialist. The part of an official choice or aadministrative demonstration that might be
examined by the legal procedure is the capability of the general population specialist. The
critical part of the investigation of administrative law is the legal control of administrative
activity. The gigantic increment in the forces of the administrative experts in the cutting edge
times. Because of the expanded forces of the administration legal control has turned into a
vital territory of regulatory law, since courts have demonstrated more powerful and valuable
than the administrative or the regulatory in the issue. The convention of legitimitate desire in
the most recent enroll to a not insignificant rundown of ideas formed by the courts to check
the maltreatment of the activity of administrative forces. This principle is talked about
keeping in view its effect on the adaptability of administrative activity.

The Public responsibility principle has created in India through case law with extraordinary
accentuation of administrative powers as open trust. Convention of proportionality is
completely set up as a sacred law idea yet its application in regulatory law is still being
discussed. This teaching talks about different cases and counter cases.Judicial review of
administrative activity is characteristic in our Constitutional plan which depends on guideline
of law and partition of forces. It is viewed as the fundamental highlights of our Constitution,
which can't be revoked even by practicing the Constituent intensity of parliament. It is the
best cure accessible against the administrative overabundances. Well it is sure sense among
 Page |7

37

the majority that if the administration attempts any work or acting under watchfulness control
gave upon it either by statutory guidelines or under the arrangements of the Constitution of
India. On the off chance that it is inability to practice carefulness or maltreatment of caution
capacity to settle its score or increase any private benefit because of this prudence control, at
that point just choice before people in general is to go to legal under Article 32,136 or Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The primary motivation behind legal survey is to guarantee
that the laws ordered by the lawmaking body adjust to the standard of law. Legal audit has
certain inborn confinements. It is more suited for arbitration of question than for performing
regulatory capacities. It is for the official to control the law and capacity of legal is to
guarantee that administration completes its obligation as per the arrangement of the
Constitution of India.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:-

1.Administrative Law- C.K Takwani

2.Administrative Law- I.P Massey

WEBSITES:-

 www.lawinsider.com
 www.sodhganga.com
 www.legalserviceindia.com