NEW LAW COLLEGE

Name: Megha Rajesh Bhut

Class: S.Y.LLB ‘A’

Roll No.: 8

Subject: Administrative Law

1|Page
 INDEX

SR.N Topic Page Number

O
1 Introduction 3
2 Administrative Discretion 3
3 Meaning and Definition 3
4 Historical Background 4
5 Administrative Discretion in Indian System 4
6 Administrative Discretion and Indian Constitution 5
7 Administrative Discretion and Fundamental Rights 5-6
8 Doctrine of Excessive Delegation of Discretion 6
9 Nature of Discretionary Powers 6-7
10 Ministerial Functions 7
11 Need of Administrative Discretion 7-8
12 Reasons behind the Development of Discretionary Powers 8
13 Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion 8-9
14 Limitations on exercise of discretions 9-11
15 Case Laws 11-13

2|Page
 Introduction
Administrative law deals with law relating to administration. It is the basic foundation of
administration. To Holland and Maitland administrative law is part of Constitutional law. The
general Principles relating to the organisation, powers and functions of "the organs of the State,
namely Legislative, Executive and Judicial) and their relationship are, inter alia, dealt with, in the
Constitution.
Administrative law determines the organisation powers and functions of the Administrative
Authorities. It includes the matters relating to civil services, public departments, -public
corporations, local authorities and other statutory bodies exercising quasi-Judicial functions and the
law governing Judicial review of administrative actions. Administrative Discretion is one of the
parts of Administrative Law and same is discussed below in detail.

 Administrative Discretion
Administrative discretion is need and inclusive growth is the purpose. It must be the slogan and aim
of every country. Administrative discretion can become curse for the country if it transforms in
arbitrariness. Administrative discretion is useless if it unsuccessful to get the inclusive growth.
Mostly countries had adopted the concept of welfare state. To fulfil this purpose administration had
required for some discretion. Administrative discretion is a means to get the aim of welfare state.
India also had adopted the welfare concept. So, the power of administrative discretion had also
conferred for administrative officers. Administrative discretion was given to get the inclusive
growth. I want to say through my paper that administrative discretion and inclusive growth both are
going to parallel in India. There are many problems in sits way i.e. corruption, misbehaviour,
negligence and arbitrariness.

 Meaning and Definition

The word administrative discretion denotes two words administrative and discretion. It means
discretion which is used by administration in their functions. Firstly, we will discuss on discretion
than we will point out on the administrative discretion. Discretion means decision power. In other
words, the power to do something according their mind and wisdom. Every person has discretion
regarding their property he can donate, transfer and sale. It is his discretion if wants that his
property should go for his heredities, he can write a will. If he does not want to give his property to
his heredities he can sale it. No one can interfere in his discretion. Individual discretion is different
with administrative discretion. In individual discretion there is no any restriction. But administrative
discretion means they have discretion within the given options. They are not free to take the
decision as an individual; they can take decision only within the limits which is provided by
legislative. Even court also exercises the power of discretion, when they punish to someone.
Discretion means choose an option from the given options on the basis of reason and argument it
must not be based on individual will. Mr. Justice Frankfurter said, “Discretion without a criterion
of its exercise is authorization of arbitrariness”. It means discretion is choosing one option from

3|Page
amongst alternatives. These alternatives must be based on reasons and justice not according to
personal will. This exercise must not be capricious, blurred and bizarre; it must be legal and regular.

 Historical Background
Administrative discretion is also known as, Public Interest, Public purpose, Fair, Fit, Prejudicial to
public safety and security, Satisfaction, Belief, Efficient, Expedient, Proper, sufficient, and their
opposites. Administrative discretion is a big problem from the beginning time. It has proved that
any welfare government cannot do their work without discretionary powers of administrative
authorities. It is not compulsory only to improve the powers of administrative discretion. But it is
compulsory because no one know about future so any certain law may not enact for the future. But
it is also truth that an absolute discretion may become a cruel owner.
According to English jurisprudence any member of executive may not interfere with the property
and liberty without this condition that he will also express the legality of his act before the court
Administrative actions are either ministerial or discretionary. A ministerial action is one where the
authorities have a duty to do a thing in a particular way. Such actions, however, are exceptional. In
most administrative actions, the administrative authorities have the power either to act or not to act
or to act in one way or the other. This power- to act or not to act or to act in one way or the other –
is called discretionary power. Discretion is the power to decide or act according to one’s judgment
Whenever the word “may” is used by legislation before explaining the administrative powers. The
word may indicate discretionary powers. In other words, we can say freedom of authority. Professor
Dicey criticized it he thought that discretion is the source of inequality, discrimination and arbitrary
action. It is a clear violation of rule of law. With the effect of socio- economic typical problems
which rise suddenly, it is faced by administration. So, the scope of ministerial powers is shrinking,
and the scope of discretionary powers is increased. It has been experienced that a government which
has only ministerial powers are rigid and dormant. So administrative officers have required the
power to choose, which powers, how and when they will exercise their powers. Main reason is
behind these problems; administrative authorities have faced such tuff problems i.e. investigation of
facts and choose the facts. Therefore, the modern concept is this; lots of discretionary powers are
conferred to administration. It is mentioned in a statute that government may form rules to fulfil the
object of respective act, when they have need. With the effect of this the discretionary power to
make rules and choose the time and place to enforce those rules is conferred to government by the
legislative. Legislative do not direct that which rules will make.

 Administrative Discretion in Indian System

India has also adopted the concept of welfare state so it was necessary conferred the discretionary
powers to administration because it was only one body which can do all works to get the aim of
welfare concept. After adopting this concept government participated and interfered in all work
which was done by public. Now state thinks about the development of both public and state. Before
it state was think about only state and do the ministerial functions. It did not have any interest
public matters. Now the state starts to think about public and their facilities, so state imposed the
burden of all responsibilities on the administration. But without discretionary power it was not
possible. Administrative officers felt the need the power to take instant decision. Without it they are
unable to do something. So state conferred discretionary powers to them. No modern government,

4|Page
however, can function without the grant of discretionary power to administrative authorities.
Whether or not an action is required depends upon the happening of certain events or the arising of
certain situations that cannot be anticipated. They have to be determined from time to time and the
administrator has to respond by using the power given to her. What is to be done if a riot breaks
out? What is to be done if an essential commodity becomes scarce and suddenly goes out of
market? Some actions depend upon an assessment of the situation by administrative authorities.
Expressions such as if he is of the opinion or if he is satisfied or if he has reasonable grounds to
believe vest power in the authority to act on framing an opinion or being satisfied that the action is
necessary. All such actions are discretionary.4 Supreme Court had held that in the respect of
discretionary power given under statute to administration. It is expected that the use of discretionary
powers would be based on fair, Just and reasonableness, it must not be based on individual interest
or will. It must not be doubtful, arbitrary and imaginary. It must be under within the limits, which is
expected with a genuine person.

 Administrative Discretion and Indian Constitution

Any statute cannot be challenged on the ground of alleged mala fide intentions or mysterious
motive, if it is enacted by competent legislature. If any statute confers discretion to the executive, it
must impose some limitations for the exercise their discretion. There are so provisions in our
constitution which refer discretion. President of India is the supreme of Executive. He exercised
much discretionary power. He can impose national emergency if he is satisfied that any condition
has been rise under article 352. He has power to enact and enforce ordinance. He can dissolve to lok
sabha, when not any party is in majority. He has discretion whose will call to form the government.
He has also the power to grant pardon or remission of sentence to person convicted of offences by
court of law under article 72 and 161. He can also presidential rule on a state under article 356. But
all these powers are under some restrictions. These are not arbitrary nature. Even judiciary has also
exercised some discretion, when judges punished to guilty person they have discretion where it is
mentioned imprisonment or fine or both, they can convict with any sanction.

 Administrative Discretion and Fundamental Rights

As has been pointed-out above, there is a demonstrable trend at present in all democratic countries
to leave a large amount of discretion in the hands of authority’s legislation conferring powers on the
Administration is usually drafted in broad and general terms. This leaves the administrator free to
exercise his power according to his own judgment. Such a development is disquieting because
broad powers present possibilities of being misused and exercised in an arbitrary and discriminatory
manner. It thus becomes necessary to devise proper safeguards to neutralise such an eventuality so
that injustice is not done to any person. The statute conferring discretionary power hardly even
creates any control mechanism to oversee the exercise of power by the concerned administrator.
Therefore, the courts have to play a major role in the process of controlling the functioning of the
Administration. In this connection, some Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution
through Articles 12 to 35 play a significant role.
Fundamental rights control the executive and legislative powers of the government. And it has also
the control over the administrative discretion. No Law may provide administrative finality, because
court has jurisdiction to check the administrative discretion. If discretion is against fundamental
rights it must be void and declared unconstitutional by the court. Court will focus on some
protective principles when it may be necessary during exercise discretionary power in respect of

5|Page
fundamental rights. Discretion can be controlled in a limited jurisdiction with the effect of
Fundamental rights. Court has also time to time discus on the legality of such laws, which provide
discretionary power. To fulfil this object court, see the summary and making procedure of such law.
If court finds these laws against constitution, it will be declared unconstitutional. Administration
cannot violate article 14 & 19 when they will exercise discretionary powers.

 Doctrine of Excessive Delegation of Discretion

The courts have generally attempted to control the delegation of legislative power on the
Administration through the doctrine of 'excessive delegation of discretion' by involving certain
Fundamental Rights. The doctrine envisages that conferral of too broad and uncanalised discretion
on the Administration is invalid. Discretionary power ought to be hedged by policy, standards,
guidelines and/or procedural safeguards, otherwise the courts may declare the statutory provision
conferring sweeping discretion as void. Comparatively speaking, the courts have shown greater
deference to laws conferring power of delegated legislation than to the laws conferring discretion.
In the former case, often the courts have been satisfied with vague or broad statements of policy and
have even upheld statutes when the policy was not apparent. But the courts have adopted somewhat
more critical attitude while scrutinising statutory provisions conferring discretion with reference to
Fundamental Rights. The reason is that delegated legislation being a power to make orders of
general applicability presents less chance of administrative arbitrariness than administrative
discretion which is applied to individual cases. In Shiv Nandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar ,
Bhagwati, J., has spoken of the doctrine as follows: "It is significant to note that the entire
development of administrative law is characterised by a consistent series of decisions controlling
and structuring the discretion conferred on the State and its officers. The law always frowns on
uncanalised and unfettered discretion on any instrumentality of the State and it is the glory of
administrative law that such discretion has been through judicial decisions structured and
regulated."
One great advantage of having a statement of a standard or policy in the statute is to enable the
courts to assess whether a specific administrative action is in conformity with this standard or
policy.
This purpose can be achieved effectively only if the court insist that the legislature expresses its
policy or standard clearly and, in such terms, as would help the courts to keep the exercise of
discretion within the four corners of the legislative policy.
It may not be out of place to mention here that in the Fundamental Rights there exists a source of
judicial power which, if fully exploited, can go a long way in mitigating the dangers of too much
administrative discretion- a development, which is causing a good deal of anxiety to thinking
people in many democratic countries. Fundamental Rights are real and not notional; they are
substantial and not fictional, and they should be treated by the courts as such. In a welfare state, a
balance has to be drawn between public power and individual freedom, and it is for the courts to
ensure that this balance is not tilted too much in favour of the Administration as against the
individual.

 Nature of Discretionary Powers

A significant phenomenon discernible in the present-day administrative process in modern
democracies is the conferral of large discretionary powers on the Administration to make decisions

6|Page
from case to case. Acquisition of more and more discretionary powers by the Administration is a
demonstrable modern trend today. Every statute which is enacted by the Legislature confers some
elements of discretion on the Administration. Discretionary powers are also conferred through
Delegated Legislation. The main reason for vesting large discretionary powers in the government
and its officials is the increasing state regulation of human affairs. Literally there are tens of
thousands of discretionary powers to be found in the statutes and the delegated legislation.
Discretionary power may be vested in the government, a Minister, an official or an instrumentality,
constituted to discharge some function of the State. There seems to be no identifiable principle to
determine who should be the drone of a discretion in a particular situation. Perhaps, administrative
expediency is the only test for the purpose. When discretion is vested in a Minister or a high
official, he has to delegate the power to some official in a lower category, because it will be
practically impossible for the Minister or the high official to take each and every decision by
himself. Some discretionary powers may have far-reaching consequences as they can apply to large
number of people in the community. The exercise of some discretionary powers may have profound
economic consequences.
“A public officer has discretion whenever the effective limits on his power leave him free to make a
choice among possible courses of action or inaction”

 Ministerial Functions
As contrasted with the concept of discretionary power, there is the concept of ministerial power in
which the law prescribes the function to be performed by the concerned authority in somewhat
definite and specific terms, leaving no choice to it and leaving nothing to its discretion or judgment.
Such a function involves no investigation into disputed facts; the law imposes a simple and definite
duty on the authority concerned which acts in strict obedience to the provisions of law and it can act
only in one particular manner, in a given fact situation. In one of the case law, it was held that the
task of referring the question of detention of a person to an advisory board under the COFEPOSA is
a mechanical or ministerial act, involving no exercise of discretion, though the government has full
liberty to revoke the order of detention at that stage, or at any other stage. In modern times, the
range of ministerial functions is comparatively much smaller while that of discretionary functions
much larger. Discretion in the Administration is the all-pervading phenomenon of the modern age.

 Need of Administrative Discretion

Because of the complexity of socio-economic conditions which the administration in modern times
has to contend with, it is realised that a government having only ministerial duties with no
discretionary functions will be extremely rigid and unworkable and that, too some extent, officials
must be allowed a choice as to when, how, and whether they will act.
The reason for this attitude is that, more often than not, the administration is required to handle
intricate problems which involve investigation of facts, making of choices and exercise of discretion
before deciding upon what action to take.
Thus, the modern tendency is to leave a large amount of discretion with various authorities. Statute
book is now full of provisions giving discretion of one kind or the other to the government or
officials for various purposes

7|Page
The need for ‘discretion’ arises because of the necessity to individualize the exercise of power by
the administration, i.e. the administration has to apply a vague or indefinite statutory provision from
case to case. There are following good reasons for conferring discretion on administrative
authorities:
(a) The present day problems which the administration is called upon to deal with are of complex
and varying nature and it is difficult to comprehend them all within the scope of general rules;
(b) Most of the problems are new, practically of the first impression. Lack of any previous
experience to deal with them does not warrant the adoption of general rules
c) It is not always possible to foresee each and every problem but when a problem arises it must in
any case be solved by the administration in spite of the absence of specific rules applicable to the
situation’,
(d) Circumstances differ from case to case so that applying one rule mechanically to all cases may
itself result in injustice.

 Reasons behind the Development of Discretionary Powers

There are many reasons behind the development of the power of administrative discretion. Some
reasons are given blow---
1. In present time administration face difficult and different- different problems which cannot
solve by a single rule.
2. Most of those problems are new and rise first time, so a general rule cannot apply against those
problems because they don’t have sufficient experience.
3. It is not possible always anticipate to all problems, but when these problems rise and cannot be
solved according to circumstances than administrative authorities must be solved it.
4. Every problem is based on a different circumstance, if we will apply a rule to all it can be cause
of injustice. Administrative authorities can exercise their powers according to their wisdom and
circumstances.
They can make and exercise various rules to solve the problem which are rise suddenly. But when
administration will solve every problem and exercise different and different rules in those problems.
It may become the reason of many difficulties; some are given blow
1. No one may know which rule will be exercised in his matter.
2. It will be the clear violation of article- 14, Right to Equality, because in every matter of same
nature will be deal with different rules.
3. It may be possible that administrative discretion can be misused by administrative authorities.
On the bases of above discussion administrative authorities must be preferred a general rule. Where
it will possible administrative authorities must be exercised equality in their works. If it will not
maintain it may not only become cause of administrative violence bit also it will be failed to
maintain public trust. When Administration should be exercised administrative discretion they have
to care, which rules has been exercised in similar matters otherwise it will be discrimination and
create many obstacles in the way of inclusive growth.

 Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion

8|Page
According to Black's Law Dictionary, "Judicial Review" may be defined as a "Court's power to
review the actions of other branches of government, especially the courts' power to invalidate
legislative and executive actions as being unconstitutional. " Judicial review is a great weapon in
the hands of Judges. It comprises the power of a court to hold unconstitutional and unenforceable
any law or order based upon such law or any other action by a public authority which is inconsistent
or in conflict with the basic law of the land. The underlying object of judicial review is to ensure
that the authority does not abuse its power and the individual receives just and fair treatment and
not to ensure that the authority reaches a conclusion which is correct in the eye of law.

 Limitations on exercise of discretions

Though courts in India have developed a few effective parameters for the proper exercise of
discretion, the conspectus of judicial behaviour still remains halting, variegated and residual, and
lacks the activism of the American courts. Judicial control mechanism of administrative discretion
is exercised at two stages:

1. Control at the stage of delegation of discretion

The court exercises control over delegation of discretionary powers to the administration by
adjudicating upon the constitutionality of the law under which such powers are delegated with
reference to the fundamental rights enunciated in Part III of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, if
the law confers vague and wide discretionary power on any administrative authority, it may be
declared ultra vires Article 14, Article 19 and other provisions of the Constitution. In case of
delegated legislation, courts have after been satisfied with vague or broad statements of policy, but
usually it has not been so in cases of application of fundamental rights to statutes conferring
administrative discretion. The reason is that delegated legislation being a power to make an order of
general applicability presents less chance of administrative arbitrariness than administrative
discretion which applies from case to case.

2. Control at the stage of the exercise of discretion.

In India, unlike the USA, there is no Administrative Procedure Act providing for judicial review on
the exercise of administrative discretion. Therefore, the power of judicial review arises from the
constitutional configuration of courts. Courts in India have always held the view that judge-proof
discretion is a negation of the rule of law. Therefore, they have developed various formulations to
control the exercise of administrative discretion. These formulations may be conveniently
grouped into two broad generalizations:
(a) That the authority is deemed not to have exercised its discretion at all “non application of mind”.
Under this categorization, courts exercise judicial control over administrative discretion if the
authority has either abdicated its power or has put fetters on its exercise or the jurisdictional facts
are either non-existent or have been wrongly determined. The authority in which discretion is
vested can be compelled to exercise it, but not to exercise it in a particular manner. When a
discretionary power is conferred on an authority, the said authority must exercise that power after
applying its mind to the fact and circumstances of the case in hand. Thus, where the authority
abdicates its power e.g. abdication of functions, acting under dictation, conditional precedents, acts
mechanically & without due care, imposes fetters on the exercise of discretion, there is a failure to
exercise discretion.

9|Page
(b) That the authority has not exercised its discretion properly “abuse of discretion”. This is an all-
embracing formulation developed by courts in India to control the exercise of discretion by the
administrative authority. When discretionary power is conferred on an administrative authority, it
must be exercised according to law. When the mode of exercising a valid power is improper or
unreasonable there is an abuse of the power. Improper exercise of discretion includes everything
which English courts include in ‘unreasonable’ exercise of discretion and American courts include
in ‘arbitrary and capricious’ exercise of discretion. Improper exercise of discretion includes such
things as ‘taking irrelevant considerations into account’, ‘acting for improper purpose’, ‘asking
wrong questions’, ‘acting in bad faith’, ‘neglecting to take into consideration relevant factors’,
‘acting unreasonably’ etc. Following are limitations

1. Mala fides exercise of discretion

Mala fides or bad faith means dishonest intention or corrupt motive. Even though it may be difficult
to determine whether or not the authority has exceeded its powers in a particular case because of the
broad terms in which the statute in question may have conferred power on it, the administration
action may, nevertheless, be declared bad if the motivation behind the action is not honest. At times,
the courts use the phrase “mala fides” in the broad sense of any improper exercise or abuse of
power. In one of the case law, the Supreme Court observed that mala fide exercise of power does
not necessarily imply any moral turpitude as a matter of law. It only means that the statutory power
is exercised for purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended.
In this sense, mala fides is equated with any ultra vires exercise of administrative power. The term
“mala fides” has not been used in the broad sense, but in the narrow sense of exercise of power with
dishonest intent or corrupt motive. Mala fides, in this narrow sense, would include those cases
where the motive force behind an administrative action is personal animosity, spite, vengeance,
personal benefit to the authority itself or its relations or friends. Mala fide exercise of discretionary
power is bad as it amounts to abuse of power.
Mala fide is a psychological factor to allege but very difficult to prove. The burden of proving mala
fides is on the person making the allegations, and burden is ‘very heavy’. Neither express nor
implied malice can be inferred or assumed. It is for the person seeking to invalidate an order to
establish the charge of bad faith. The reason is that there is presumption in favour of the
administration that it always exercises its power bonafide and in good faith. Seriousness of
allegations demands proof of a high order and credibility. The Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa v.
Tamil Nadu, brought out difficulties inherent in proving mala fides. The factors which are important
in proof of mala fides: (i) Direct evidence (e.g. documents, tape recordings etc.), (ii) Course of
events, (iii) Public utterance of the authority, (iv) Deliberate ignoring of facts by the authority and
(v) Failure to file affidavits denying the allegations of mala fides. However, if the allegations are of
wild nature, there is no need of controverting allegations. Mala fides may also be inferred from the
authority ignoring apparent facts either deliberately or sheer avoidance.

2. Constitutional imperative and use of discretionary authority

If a statute confers power for one purpose, its use for a different purpose will not be regarded as a
valid exercise of the powers and the same may be quashed. The cases of exercise of discretionary
power from improper purposes have increased in modern times because conferment of broad
discretionary power has become usual tendency. The orders based on improper purpose were
quashed first in the cases concerning the exercise of powers of compulsory acquisition in England.

10 | P a g e
So where the power is exercised for a purpose different from that specified in the statute, the court
will declare the exercise of the power as ultra vires. Where the land is acquired by Municipal
Corporation ostensibly for a public purpose but in fact to enable another body to acquire it through
the medium of corporation for some other purpose, the acquisition order would be quashed by the
court. Similarly, where Municipal Corporation refused to approve the construction of buildings with
a view to pressurizing the petitioner to provide drainage for the adjoining building, and where the
construction scheme of the petitioner does not contravene.
“Improper purpose” is broader than mala fides, for whereas the latter denotes a personal spite or
malice, the former may have no such element. The action of an authority may be motivated by some
public interest (as distinguished from private interest) but it may be different from what is
contemplated by the statute under which the action has been taken. Here it is not so much relevant
to assess whether the authority is acting in good faith or bad faith. What is relevant is to assess
whether the purpose in view is one sanctioned by the statute which confers power on the authority
concerned.

3. Irrelevant considerations
A discretionary power must be exercised on relevant and not on irrelevant or extraneous
considerations. It means that power must be exercised taking into account the considerations
mentioned in the statute. If the statute mentions no such considerations, then the power is to be
exercised on considerations relevant to the purpose for which it is conferred. If the authority
concerned plays attention to, or takes into account wholly irrelevant or extraneous circumstances,
events or matters then the administrative action is ultra vires and will be quashed. Thus, where an
administrative order is issued on formal grounds or considerations which are irrelevant, it will be
quashed. The exercise of discretionary power should not be influenced by considerations that
cannot be lawfully taken into account. The determination of the considerations which are relevant,
and those which are irrelevant, is a matter of inference from the general terms of the statute.
The decision of the House of the Lords in Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, lays down the
parameters of judicial control of administrative discretion in England. In this case under the
statutory mil-marketing scheme, the prices paid to milk producers in different areas are fixed by the
Milk Marketing Board which consists of representatives of the producers. The producers near the
area of London complained that though they were in proximity of the London market, yet the price
paid did not reflect the higher value of their milk and requested the minister to refer the matter to
the Statutory Committee for Complaints. To direct or not to direct a complaint to the committee was
the sole discretion of the minister. The minister in exercise of his unfettered discretion refused to
direct the complaint. One of the reasons given by the ministry was that minister would be in a
difficult political position if, despite the committee’s acceptance of the complaint, the minister
should take no action. The House of Lords held that the minister’s reasons were unsatisfactory, and
his decision was unreasonable. The purpose of the Act was that every genuine complaint must be
forwarded to the committee and anything contrary to this would frustrate that purpose.

11 | P a g e
 Case Laws

1. Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab

The Supreme Court used the phrase “mala fides” for initiating administrative action against an
individual “for satisfying a private or personal grudge of the authority.” In this case, the appellant, a
civil surgeon in the employment of the state government, was initially granted leave preparatory to
retirement, but, subsequently, it was revoked, and he was placed under suspension and disciplinary
action was started against him on the charge that he had accepted a bribe of Rs. 16/- from some
patient prior to going on leave. The appellant alleged that the disciplinary action against him had
been initiated at the instance of the Chief Minister to wreak personal vengeance on him as he had
refused to yield to the illegal demands of the Chief Minister and members of his family. The
Supreme Court accepted the contention, held the exercise of power to be mala fide and quashed the
order.

2. State of Bombay v. K.P. Krishnan

An industrial dispute regarding the payment of bonus for a certain year was refused to be referred
by the Government to a tribunal for adjudication on the ground that the “workmen resorted to a go-
slow during the year.” The court held that the reasons given by the Government were extraneous
and not germane to the dispute. The Government acted in punitive manner and this was inconsistent
with the objective of the statute. A claim for bonus is based on the consideration that by their
contribution to the profits of the employer, the employees are entitled to claim a share in the said
profits, and so any punitive action taken by the Government by refusing to refer for adjudication an
industrial dispute for settlement would in our opinion be wholly inconsistent with the object of the
Act. Where an administrative authority leaves out relevant consideration in the exercise of its
power, such action becomes invalid.

3. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation

In this case, Municipal corporation had invited tenders for appointment of agents for the collection
of octroi. However, one of the eligibility conditions was deleted after the expiry of time for
submission of tenders but before opening thereof. Thereafter, tender was awarded to one who did
not fulfil the deleted condition. The Supreme Court held award of tender arbitrary and
discriminatory. Notable instances: administrative discretion and Article 19 Article 19 contains six
freedoms. These freedoms are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions. The Courts
have always taken the view that the vesting of wide discretionary power in the administrative
authorities to curtail these freedoms is immeasurable and hence unconstitutional.

4. State of Punjab v. V.K Khanna

The Court held that the expression ‘mala fide’ has a definite significance and there must be existing
definite evidence of bias. The action would not be mala fide unless the same is in accompaniment
with some other factors which would depict a bad motive or intent on the part of the doer of the act.

12 | P a g e
Mala fide intent or bias depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. The dispute in the
appeals pertains to the last phase of earlier government and the first phase of the present
government in the State of Punjab. Whereas the former chief secretary of the State of Punjab
initiated proceedings against two senior colleagues. When Prakash Singh Badal came into power
not only chief secretary had to walk out of the administrative building but a number seventeen
officer in the hierarchy of officers, was placed as the chief secretary and within a period of 10 days
of his entry at the secretariat, a notification was issued, though with the authority and the consent of
Chief Minister pertaining to cancellation of two earlier notification initiating a CBI inquiry. The
High Court attributed it to be a motive improper and mala fide. Absence of malice has been the
main contention in support of the appeal and adoption of a simple method of disciplinary enquiry
was key issue as given by the appellants. Shri Khanna, a respondent contended that the entire
proceeding was the event of gross violation of basic tenets by reason of malice. Supreme Court
upheld the order of the High Court.

13 | P a g e