CONTENTS

 List of cases
 Introduction
 Classification of administrative action
 Quasi-judicial bodies: establishment, functions
 Emergence of quasi-judicial bodies in india
 Quasi-judicial action vs. Administrative action, important quasi judicial bodies
 Difference between judicial and quasi-judicial body
 Establishments of administrative tribunals
 The application of natural justice while discharging administrative actions
 Rule-making action / quasi-legislative
 Rule decision action / quasi-judicial
 Rule-application action / administrative action
 Ministerial action
 Conclusion:
 Reference

LIST OF CASES

 Board of high school, U.P. v. Ghanshyam, AIR 1962 SC 110

 G. Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC, AIR 1959 SC 222
 Mitlesh Garg v. Union of India, (1992)1 SCC 168
 Babul Chandradas v. Chief Justice&Judges Of Patna Highcourt, AIR 1954 SC 524
 Lakhanpal v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1507
 Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas Advani, AIR 1950 SC 222
 Ayubkhan v. Commr, AIR 1965 SC 1623.
 sitaram Sugar co. ltd. V. Union of India,(1990)3 SCC 223
 Delhi law acts, In re, AIR 1951 SC 332
 Shri sitaram Sugar co. ltd. V. Union of India,(1990)3 SCC 223
 Thakkar, c.k.: Administrative law, Eastern Book Company, 2008
 State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy, AIR 1953 SC 53.
 Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1942.
 Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd, AIR 1987 SC 1802
 Sundrajas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, AIR 1990 SC 261

1
 Introduction

In the 21st century various functions are performed by administrative entities so much so that
the administrative process cuts across the traditional bounds of classification and combines
into one the powers exercised by all the organs, i.e. legislature, executive, judiciary. It’s
evident that a wide variety of activities fall within the sphere of ‘administrative action’ and
that even administrative authority doesn’t restrict to courts and legislative bodies of the
country. Residuary functions of administrative bodies may themselves partake themselves of
the legislative or judicial quality.[i]  The consideration that arises is whether the function
performed by executive authorities is purely administrative, quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative
in nature, since there’s no precise or scientific test to distinguish one from another. 

Quasi-judicial – it means an authority that is required to act judicially either by an express

provision or by its acts or by important implication of a bill or an act, the decisions of such an
authority generally amount to quasi-judicial decisions. However, the executive or
administrative bodies are not required to act judicially and are competent to deal with issues
referred to them, their conclusions cannot be treated as quasi-judicial conclusions. For
example in this case- “Engg. Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd”. A Quasi-Judicial body or
act suggests that there must be two or more parties and an outside authority to decide the
discussion. Hence the presence of two rival parties is must in order to hold the statutory
authority as quasi-judicial body. In circumstances where there are no two rival parties, it is a
judicial procedure which is required to be followed in Quasi-Judicial acts.

Quasi-judicial is also known as a non-judicial body which has the ability to interpret law. It is
an entity or an agency, which has powers and procedures that resemble a court of
law or judge, and which is obliged to determine facts and draw conclusions from them so as
to provide the basis of an official action. Therefore, these actions are remedy for a situation or
to impose legal penalties, and the actions may affect the legal rights, duties or privileges of
specific parties. 

The term ‘judicial’ does not certainly mean the act of a Judge or Legal committee meeting for
the discovery of a matter of law, but a judicial act is an act done by an authority who is
competent, for consideration of facts and situations and impose liability or affect the rights of
others. In the case of “Royal Aquarium and Summer and Winter Garden Society Ltd. v.
Parkinson”, it deals with the meaning of the word “judicial”. It was observed that the word
‘judicial’ has two meanings. It refers to the discharge of duties which can be exercised by a

2
Judge or by Judges in court or to administrative duties which need not be performed in court,
but that is important to determine what is fair and just in respect of the matters under
consideration or damages.

The difference between “judicial” and “ministerial acts” is – if a Judge is in a dealing a

particular matter, has to exercise his discretion or power to arrive at a decision, he is acting
judicially; if on the other hand, he is merely required to do a particular act and is prevented
from entering into merits of the matter, he is said to be acting ministerially. Classification is
essential and inevitable as many consequences flow from it, e.g. if an executive authority
exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions it must confirm with the principles of natural
justice or amenable to certiorari or prohibition[ii] but if it’s an administrative, legislative or
quasi-legislative function, that’s not the case.[iii] It is therefore imperative to determine what
type of function the administrative authority performs.

Despite its overall superiority, the French administrative law cannot be characterized with
perfection. Its glories have been marked by the persistent slowness in the judicial reviews at
the administrative courts and by the difficulties of ensuring the execution of its last judgment.
Moreover, judicial control is the only one method of controlling administrative action in
French administrative law, whereas, in England, a vigilant public opinion, a watchful
Parliament, a self -disciplined civil service and the jurisdiction of administrative process
serve as the additional modes of control over administrative action. By contrast, it has to be
conceded that the French system still excels its counterpart in the common law countries of
the world1

CLASSIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Administrative action is a comprehensive term and defies exact definition. In modern times
the administrative process is a by-product of intensive form of government and 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. Therefore, there is
general agreement among the writers on administrative law that any attempt of classifying
administrative functions or any conceptual basis is not only impossible but also futile2.

Even then a student of administrative law is compelled to delve into field of classification
because the present-day law especially relating to judicial review freely employs conceptual
1
I.P. Massy,Administrative Law,Seventh edition, 2012
2
Jain, M.P. : Indian Constitutional Law,1999
3
classification of administrative action. Thus, speaking generally, an administrative action can
be classified into four categories: 3

i) Rule-making action or quasi-legislative action.

ii) Rule-decision action or quasi-judicial action.
iii) Rule-application action or administrative action.
iv) Ministerial action

Quasi-Judicial Bodies: Establishment, Functions

Quasi-judicial bodies are institutes which have powers analogous to that of the law imposing
bodies but these are not courts. They primarily oversee the administrative zones. The courts
have the power to supervise over all types of disputes but the quasi-judicial bodies are the
ones with the powers of imposing laws on administrative agencies. These bodies support to
lessen the burden of the courts.4 Quasi-judicial activity is restricted to the issues that concern
the particular administrative agency. Quasi-judicial action may be appealed to a court of law.
These organizations generally have authorities of settlement in matters like breach of
discipline, conduct rules, and trust in the matters of money or otherwise. Their powers are
usually limited to a particular area of expertise, such as financial markets, employment laws,
public standards, immigration, or regulation.

Awards and judgements of quasi-judicial bodies often depend on a pre-determined set of

rules or punishment depending on the nature and gravity of the offence committed. Such
punishment may be legally enforceable under the law of a country it can be challenged in a
court of law which is the final vital authority.5

Emergence of Quasi-Judicial Bodies in India

As the welfare state has grown up in size and functions, more and more litigations are
pending in the judiciary, making it over-burdened. It requires having an alternative justice
system. Ordinary judiciary has become dilatory and costly. With scientific and economic
development, laws have become more complex, demanding more technical knowledge about

3
Sathe , Administrative Law,2003
4
Thakkar, c.k.: Administrative law, Eastern Book Company, 2008
5
Board of high school, u.p. v. ghanshyam, AIR 1962 SC 110
4
specific sectors. The conventional judiciary is suffering from procedural rigidity, which
delays the justice.

Further, a bulk of decisions, which affect a private individual come not from courts, but from
administrative agencies exercising ad judicatory powers.6

Quasi-judicial Action vs. Administrative Action, Important Quasi Judicial bodies

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.

In A.K. Kraipak vs. The 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 the power conferred, to whom power is given, the framework within
which power is conferred and the consequences.

Thus broadly speaking, acts, which are required to be done on the subjective satisfaction of
the administrative authority, are called ‘administrative’ acts, while acts, which are required to
be done on objective satisfaction of the administrative authority, can be termed as quasi-
judicial acts.7

Administrative decisions, which are founded on pre-determined standards, are called

objective decisions whereas decisions which involve a choice, as there is no fixed standard to
be applied are so called subjective decisions.

The former is a quasi-judicial decision, while the latter is an administrative decision. In case
of an administrative decision, there is no legal obligation, upon the person charged with the
duty of reaching the decision, to consider and weigh submissions and arguments or to collate
any evidence. However, the Supreme Court observed, “It is well settled that the old
distinction between a judicial act and administrative act has withered away and we have been
liberated from the pestilent incantation of administrative action.”8

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY

Judicial bodies are the courts that are in our country like the Supreme Court, High Court,
district Court etc. They working based on the strict rules. For example, the criminal cases are

6
G. nageswara rao v. APSRTC, AIR 1959 SC 222
7
Thakkar, c.k.: Administrative law, Eastern Book Company, 2008
8
Jain, M.P. : Indian Constitutional Law,1999
5
followed by the CRPC rules, civil cases with the CPC, and evidence Act for the record of
evidence in the case. The meaning of the word quasi itself meant that semi or partial, the
quasi-judicial bodies are the judicial body partially judicial but not completely. 9

These bodies are not completely following the rules. Administrative Tribunals, Revenue
Courts are an example for quasi-judicial bodies. The judicial courts are normal courts their
punishments are like caging, fines etc. The tribunals are quasi-tribunals, Railway Tribunals,
Armed forced Tribunals, National Green Tribunals etc.

Establishments of Administrative Tribunals

Establishment of Administrative Tribunals.—(1) The Central Government shall, by

notification, establish an Administrative Tribunal, to be known as the Central Administrative
Tribunal, to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on the Central
Administrative Tribunal by or under this Act. (2) The Central Government may, on receipt of
a request in this behalf from any State Government, establish, by notification, an
Administrative Tribunal for the State to be known as the.......(name of the State)
Administrative Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on the
Administrative Tribunal for the State by or under this Act.10

(3) Two or more States may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) and
notwithstanding that any or all of those States has or have Tribunals established under that
sub-section, enter into an agreement that the same Administrative Tribunal shall be the
Administrative Tribunal for each of the States participating in the agreement, and if the
agreement is approved by the Central Government and published in the Gazette of India and
the Official Gazette of each of those States, the Central Government may, by notification,
establish a Joint Administrative Tribunal to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority
conferred on the Administrative Tribunals for those States by or under this Act.11

(4) An agreement under sub-section (3) shall contain provisions as to the name of the Joint
Administrative Tribunal, the manner in which the participating States may be associated in
the selection of the 3 [Chairman and other Members] of the Joint Administrative Tribunal,
the places at which the Bench or Benches of the Tribunal shall sit, the apportionment among
the participating States of the expenditure in connection with the Joint Administrative
9
I.P. Massy,Administrative Law,Seventh edition, 2012
10
Mitlesh Garg v. Union of India, (1992)1 SCC 168
11
Babul Chandradas v. chief justice&judges of patna highcourt, AIR 1954 SC 524
6
Tribunal and may also contain such other supplemental, incidental and consequential
provisions not inconsistent with this Act as may be deemed necessary or expedient for giving
effect to the agreement. Any Need of explanations about tribunals can seek suggestions from
the Lawyers in India.12

The Application of Natural Justice while Discharging Administrative Actions

In modern times the administrative process has become a product of intensive form of
government powers and combines into one all the powers which were traditionally exercise
by three different organs of the state. Therefore this is the general agreement among the
writers on administrative law that any attempt of classifying administrative functions on any
conceptual classification of administrative action can be classified into four categories: 13
1. Rule-making action / Quasi-legislative

2. Rule decision action / Quasi-judicial

3. Rule-application action / Administrative action

4. Ministerial action

Rule-making action / Quasi-legislative

American constitution expressly confers to legislature the rule making action while it is
implied under Indian Constitution. Combination effect of article 107 to111 and 196 to 201 is
that the law making power can be exercised for the union by parliament and for the state by
respective state legislatures. It is the intention of the constitutional makers that this law
making power must be exercised by those bodies alone with which this power must be
vested. But in this twentieth century these legislative bodies cannot give that quality and the
quantity of laws which are required for the efficient functioning of a modern intensive form
of the government. Therefore, the delegation of law-making power to the administration is a
compulsive necessity, when administration authority exercised the law making action of the
administration or quasi-legislative action.14

Rule-making action part takes all characteristics of legislative action but these characteristics
are not without exception. In some cases, administrative rule making may be particularized,

12
Lakhanpal v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1507
13
Province of Bombay v. khushaldas advani, AIR 1950 SC 222
14
Ayubkhan v. Commr, AIR 1965 SC 1623.
7
retroactive and based on evidence, according to Chinappa Reddy.J., a legislative action has
four characteristics (1) generality (2) prospective (3) public interest (4) rights and obligation
flow from it.15

In State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh There was a declaration determining the territorial area of a
Gram Sabha & thereafter establishing the Gram Sabha – the question was whether it is a
quasi-legislative act?

* Where the provisions of statute provide for legislative activity

* Where the power exercised does not concern an interest of the individual or relate to
particular situation but relates to public in general

* Where it lays down future course of action

Rules of Natural Justice do not apply except reasonableness & fair play Apex court held that
such action will generally hold to quasi judicial legislation action of the authority. It is on the
basis of these characteristics that one can differentiate between quasi-legislative and quasi-
judicial action. A quasi-judicial action is essentially based on the facts of the case and
declares a pre existing right. However, in certain situation like wage or wage fixing, it is not
capable of easy differentiation.

In Express News Paper(p) Ltd. V. Union of India, 16 the SC left the question open as to
whether the function of the wage commission under the working journalists’(condition of
service) Act,1956 is quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative. However, the delegation to the
government of the power to fix the price of levy sugar was held to be quasi-legislative
functions

The committee of the ministers’ powers which was appointed in England in 1928
distinguished between administrative and quasi-legislative action on the ground that where
the former is a process of performing particular acts or of making decision involving the
application of general rule of conduct without references to particular cases and usually for
future operation.

15
shri sitaram Sugar co. ltd. V. Union of india,(1990)3 scc 223
16
I.P. Massy,Administrative Law,Seventh edition, 2012
8
Though the rules of natural justice do not apply to legislatives actions yet reasonableness and
fair play in action must be observed as article 14 of the constitution equally applies to
legislative action.

Rule decision action / Quasi-judicial

This is regarded more with the decisions from administrative agencies exercising
adjudicating powers. The reason seems to be since the administrative decision-making is also
a by-product 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.

There are certain powers to perform acts which are administrative in nature but incidentally
require some judicial control. On the basis of the definition of quasi judicial action, the
following functions of the administrative have been held to be quasi-judicial functions:17

1. Disciplinary proceedings against student.

2. Disciplinary proceedings against an employee for misconduct.

3. Confiscation of goods under the sea customs act, 1878.

4. Determination of statutory disputes.

5. Determination of citizenship.

6. Forfeiture of pensions and gratuity.

7. Grant of permit by regional transport Authority.

A quasi judicial act involves the first two determinants, may or may not involve the third but
never involves the fourth determinant, because the place of the fourth determinant is in fact
taken by the minister’s free choice involving expediency, discretion and policy consideration.

And the approach given by the committee seems fallacious because the judges cannot be
regard as mere norm-producing slot machines. They consider policy, socio-economic &
political factors, expediency and also under their discretion. Here administrative authorities
may apply law & dispose of the case18

Ex: Tax Quasi-judicial need not follow strict procedure.

17
Sathe , Administrative Law,2003
18
De Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Actions (1980)
9
The distinguishing feature of a quasi-judicial proceeding on 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 R. v. Electricity Commissioners. In this, Lord ATKINS thus:19

“whenever anybody of the 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 subjects to the controlling jurisdiction of the kings Bench Division.”

In India the judicial research for the duty to act judicially was sometimes made within the
corners of the statuteunder which the authority exercised powers and sometimes in the
tenuous material , remote and extraneous, such as , lis inter parties including proposition and
opposition, implications arising from the nature of the functions and the rights affecting
thereby.

This doctrine approach of the courts in India and England not only made the law confused
and uncertain but also eluded justice in many cases.

However turning point came with RIDGE V. BALDWIN20 where the Lord Reid pointed out
that “ if the Lord Heyward 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.” It was 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.

The development of law is traceable in India also where the Supreme Court even earlier than
RIDGE v. BOWLDEN21 with 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 such power.

In A.K. Kraipak V/s Union of India, 22in this case the Supreme Court held that though the
action of making selection for the government services is administrative, yet the selection
committee is under a duty to act judicially. The court observed that the dividing line between
an administrative powers and quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually
obliterated.

19
Delhi law acts, In re, AIR 1951 SC 332
20
I.P. Massy,Administrative Law,Seventh edition, 2012
21
Shri sitaram Sugar co. ltd. V. Union of india,(1990)3 scc 223
22
Thakkar, c.k.: Administrative law, Eastern Book Company, 2008
10
In D.K. Yadav V/s J.M.A Indiustries Ltd 23 the Supreme Court further observed that the
distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative action which had become thin lined is
now totally eclipsed and obliterated. Proceeding with a step further the Supreme Court clearly
held in Chandra Bhavan And Lodging Banglore V/s State of Mysore 24 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.

Elaborating the law further, the court identified three characteristics of quasi-judicial action :
(1) it is in the substances a determination upon investigation of a question by the application
of an objective standard to facts found in the light of pre-existing rules (2) it declares rights
and imposes upon parties obligation affecting their civil rights and imposes upon parties
obligation their civil rights : (3) that the investigation is the subjects to certain procedures
attributes contemplating facts and if the disputes to be on question of law on the presentation
of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings on those
question of law and facts.

In Manju Verma V/s State Of U.P, 25the court observed that the chief justice could not have
allowed the plea without hearing the affecting party and without determining on objective
criteria and upon investigation, whether the case is transferable and should be transferred.

The decision of the chief justice would have direct bearing on the right of the appellant to
choose “forum convenience”, hence the action is quasi-judicial subject to review by the
higher forum.

3. Rule-application action / Administrative action

Though the distinction is narrow it is relevant in determining the measure of Natural Justice.
Rule application action is neither legislative nor judicial. If two persons are wearing similar
coat, it does not mean that there is no differences between them. The difference between
quasi judicial and administrative action may still be relevant in determining the measure if
natural justice is applicable in a given situation.

23
State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy, AIR 1953 SC 53.
24
Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1942.
25
Jain, M.P. : Indian Constitutional Law,1999
11
In state of A.P. V/s S.M.K Parasurnama Gurukul 26question arose whether the power of the
government to appoint trustee under section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu
Religious Institutions’ and Endowment Act, 1966 is quasi judicial or administrative the court
held that function as administrative and laid down that if there is lis between parties and the
opinion is to be formed on objective satisfaction, the action is quasi judicial, otherwise
administrative.27

Administrative action is the residuary action, which is neither legislative nor judicial. It is
concerned with treatment of a particular situation and is devoid of generality. It has no
procedural obligation of collective evidence and weighing argument and it is based upon
subjective satisfaction where decision is based on policy and expediency. It does not mean
that principle of natural justice can be ignored completely when the authority is exercising
“administrative powers”. Unless the statute provides contrary, a minimum of the principle of
natural justice must always be observed depending on the factual situation of each case, and
impose administrative duty, that while taking “administrative action” the authority must act
“fairly”.

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. Interment, exterment and deportion.

3. Fact finding action.

4. Acquisition and allotment.

5. Function of the selection committee.28

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. It is based on
subjective satisfaction, however, that the administrative authority must act fairly, impartially
and reasonably.

26
I.P. Massy,Administrative Law,Seventh edition, 2012
27
Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd, AIR 1987 SC 1802
28
Sundrajas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane, AIR 1990 SC 261
12
Ministerial action

Action as a matter of duty - Devoid of discretion or judgment Ex: Collection of revenue,

Annual report etc

In ministerial action, area of action is very limited. However, the area of such action is highly
limited because of the effective discharge of a governmental authority. Gordon classifies the
functions of administrative authorities into judicial and non-judicial. Judicial functions
involve the decision of legal standards which forms a material part of the function. Non-
judicial functions are further divided into administrative function by meeting out policy and
expediency with unfettered discretion. When an administrative agency is acting ministerially
it has no power to consult its own wishes but when it is acting administratively its standard
are subjective and it follows its own wishes.29

Conclusion:

Administrative rule-making action is controlled by parliament and and the courts. In the
condition of quasi-judicial action, only that classifying determinant can be reasonable which
is institutional rather than functional. There are administrative bodies exercising adjudicatory
powers which are as full courts. It is only the will of the legislation that these are not
classified. However, it does not mean that because purple is the confused mixture of red and
blue, there is no distinction between red and blue. Administration decision-making action is
not required to follow the elaborate judicial procedure, rather, it is sufficient if, in the absence
of any statutory requirement, the action is rendered by the following the minimum procedure
of natural justice.

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. 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.

29
Sathe , Administrative Law,2003
13
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. 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 The duty to give reason for their decision does not extend to decisions in connection
with the orders or schemes of a legislative and not of an executive character.

An administrative action is the residuary action which is neither legislative nor judicial. 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. 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 depending on the fact situation of each case.

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, to prevent miscarriage of
justice, it’s difficult to see why it should be applicable to quasi-judicial inquiry and not to
administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both. The concept of fairness has become a
much more widely applicable procedural requirement. However, in spite of great expansion
in the 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.

A few actions can 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 and deportation

14
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.

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.

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.  

Administrative actions are amenable to judicial review. This means that if administrative
actions are against principles of natural justice or in violation of citizen’s rights then the
Courts can strike down such actions. Hence, persons – both natural and body corporate can
challenge administrative actions in the Court of Law. Administrative action takes effect as
soon as it is notified in the official gazette or on the date on which it is notified to come into
effect. The modern government is an intensive form of government based on the ideal of
welfare state. Such a government has vast powers. To ensure that all these powers are
exercised efficiently, for the citizen’s good, some of it is provided to administrative

15
authorities. They ensure that the power is used efficiently, by way of various administrative
actions hence, these actions are important.

Administrative action is of three kinds- quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial and pure

administrative. Quasi-judicial actions include features of both pure administrative actions and
judicial powers, and hence are naturally amenable to judicial review. But purely
administrative actions, though can’t be referred to any judicial proceedings, are required to
comply with basic principles of fairness. If it goes against that, such an action is amenable to
judicial review.  Certain aspects of administrative action have overtones of legislature and
judiciary, the line of differentiation between them being extremely thin. However this doesn’t
mean that the classification should be completely done away with.

REFERENCE

 I.P. Massy,Administrative Law,Seventh edition, 2012

 Jain, M.P. : Indian Constitutional Law,1999
 Sathe , Administrative Law,2003
 De Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Actions (1980)
 Thakkar, c.k.: Administrative law, Eastern Book Company, 2008

16