ALI

GARHMUSLI
M UNI
VERSI
TY
MALAPPURAM CENTER

GCT-
2

Topic:Judi
cialRevi
ewofAdministr
ati
veAct
ion&
Typesofwritavai
labl
eforJudi
cialr
evi
ew
Subj
ect:Admi
nist
rat
iveLaw

Submi
tt
edBy:
- Submi
tt
edTo:
-
MohdNat
iqKhan Mr
.ShahnawazAhmedMal
ik
18BALLB78 Assi
stantPr
ofessor
GI
0153 Depar
tmentofLaw
I
II
rdYear(
6sem)
 CONTENT
I
ntr
oduct
ion

Meani
ng

Gr
oundsf
orJudi
cial
rev
iew

Jur
isdi
cti
onal
Err
or

I
rr
ati
onal
i
ty

Pr
ocedur
ali
mpr
opr
iet
y

Pr
opor
ti
onal
i
ty

Wr
itAv
ail
abl
eforJudi
cial
rev
iew

Wr
itofHabeasCor
pus

Wr
itofMandamus

Wr
itofQuoWar
rant
o

Wr
itofPr
ohi
bit
ion

Wr
itofCer
ti
orar
i

Concl
usi
on

Ref
erence
I
ntr
oduct
ion
Judici
alRev i
ewofAdmi ni
strativ
eact i
oni spartofenforcingt he
consti
tuti
onal di
sciplineov ert headmi ni
strati
veagencieswhi l
eexercising
thei
rpower s.I
thasor i
gininEngl andwhi chwasadopt edi ncommonl aw
countr
ies.I
ndiat ooi nher i
tedt heideaofjudicialr
evi
ewf r om England.India
hadlai
di t
sst r
uctureonEngl ishprerogativewithapatternwhi chwas
i
ssuedbyt hecour tofKi ng'sBenchwi t
hav i
ewt oexercisinggeneral
superi
ntendenceov ert hedueobser vanceoflawbyof fi
cials/authori
ties
whil
eper f
or mingjudi ci
al ornon- j
udici
alfuncti
ons.
Meani
ng
Judici
al Revi
ewisagreatweapont hr
oughwhi charbi
tr
ary,unj
ust,
harassingandunconsti
tuti
onall
awsar echecked.Judi
cial
reviewist
he
cornerstoneofconst
it
utional
i
sm, whi
chimpliesli
mitedGov er
nment.

Admi nistrativ
eact ioni stheresiduar yactionwhichi snei therlegisl
ativenor
j
udicial.Itisconcer nedwi ththet r
eatmentofapar ticularsituationandi s
devoidofgener ali
ty.Ithasnopr ocedural obli
gati
onsofcol lecti
ngev i
dence
andwei ghingar gument .Iti
sbasedonsubj ecti
vesat i
sf acti
onwher ethe
decisioni sbasedonpol i
cyandexpedi ency.Itdoesnotdeci dear i
ght
thoughi tmayaf f
ectar i
ght.Howev er,
itdoesnotmeant hatthepr inci
ples
ofnatur aljusti
cecanbei gnor edcompl et
elywhent heaut horit
yi s
exercising" admi ni
st r
ativepower s".Unlesst hestatutepr ovidesot herwise,
ami nimum oft hepr i
nciplesofnat uraljusti
cemustal way sbeobser ved
dependi ngont hef actsi t
uati
onofeachcase.

Admi nist r
ati
veactionmaybest at
utory,havi
ngt hefor ceofl aw, ornon-
statutory ,
dev oi
dofsuchl egalf
orce.Thebul koft headmi nistr
ativeacti
on
i
sst atut orybecauseast atut
eortheConst it
uti
ongi v esital egal f
orcebut
i
nsomecases, itmaybenon- st
atutory,suchasi ssuingdi recti
onst o
subor dinatesnothav i
ngt hefor
ceofl aw,butit
sv i
olationmaybev isi
ted
withdi scipli
naryacti
on.Thoughbyandl argeadmi nistrati
veact ionis
discretionaryandi sbasedonsubj ect
ivesatisf
act i
on, howev er
,the
admi nistrati
veauthori
tymustactf air
ly,i
mpar t
iall
yandr easonabl e.

Intheprocessofjudici
alrevi
ewoflegisl
ati
veandexecut
iveacti
on,the
courtspickoutthegoldenthreadofr
easonandmeani nginalaw;they
shapeandmoul dthelaw,rev
ealit
sfi
tnessandnuances,smooththe
angular
iti
es,st
ri
kedownt hebadl aworill
egalact
ion,
andmostessentialt
o
all
,exertthest
rongmor alfor
cesofrestr
ainti
ntimeswhenexpediencyis
all
.
GroundsforJudi
cial
Rev
iewofAdmi
nist
rat
ive
Acti
ons:-
 Jur
isdi
cti
onal
Err
or

I
rr
ati
onal
i
ty

 Pr
ocedur
ali
mpr
opr
iet
y

 Pr
opor
ti
onal
i
ty

1.
Jur
isdi
cti
onalEr
ror
Thet erm‘jur
isdict
ion’meansthepowertodeci
de.Theremightbea‘lackof
j
urisdict
ion’,
‘excessofjur
isdi
cti
on’or‘
abuseofj
uri
sdict
ion’
.Thecourtmay
rej
ectanadmi nist
rati
veacti
ononthegroundoful
travir
esinall
thesethree
sit
uations.

Acaseof‘ l
ackofjurisdi
cti
on’i
swherethetr
ibunaloraut
horit
yholdsno
powerorjuri
sdicti
onatalltopassanorder
.Thecour tmayrevi
ewt hi
s
admini
strati
veactiononthegroundthatt
heauthorit
yexerci
sedjuri
sdi
cti
on
whichitwasnotsupposedt o.Thepowerofreviewmaybeexer ci
sedon
thefol
l
owi ngthreegrounds:

 Thatt
helawunderwhi
chtheadmini
strat
iveauthor
it
yisconst
it
uted
andexer
cisi
ngj
uri
sdi
cti
onisi
tsel
funconsti
tut
ional
,

 Thatt
heaut
hor
it
yisnotpr
oper
lyconst
it
utedast
hel
awr
equi
res,
and

 Thattheauthor
it
yhasmi st
akenlydeci
dedaj
uri
sdi
cti
onal
factand
hencefor
thassumedjur
isdict
ionwhichdi
dnotbel
ongtoi
tfi
rst
.

Acaseof‘excessofj
uri
sdicti
on’cover
sasi t
uat
ionwherei
nthought he
author
it
yini
ti
all
yhadthejuri
sdict
ionoveramatterbutt
henitexceededand
aft
erwardsi
tsacti
onsbecomei ll
egal
.Thiscanhappenint
hef ol
lowing
si
tuat
ionswhen:

 Anadmi ni
str
ati
vebodycont
inuestoexerci
sejuri
sdi
cti
ondespi
tet
he
occur
renceofaneventoust
ingthejur
isdi
cti
on,and

 Wheni
tisent
ert
aini
ngmat
ter
sout
sidei
tsj
uri
sdi
cti
on.

All
admini
str
ati
vepower
smustbeexer
cisedbonafi
deandf ai
rly
.Ift
he
power
sareabused,i
twi
llgi
ver
iset
oagroundofjudici
alr
ev i
ew.

2.
Ir
rat
ional
it
y
Agener alestabli
shedpr
inci
pleisthatthediscret
ionarypowerconferredon
anadmi nistr
ativ
eauthori
tyshouldbeexercisedreasonably.Adecisi
onof
anadmi nistr
ativ
eauthori
tycanbehel dtobeunr easonableifi
tisso
outrageousinitsdefi
anceoflogicorprevalentmoralstandardsthatno
reasonablepersonwhohadappl iedhismi ndtothesubjectcouldhave
arri
vedati t
.

‘
Irr
ati
onal
it
y’wasdev el
opedasagr oundofjudi
cial
rev
iewintheAssoci
ated
Provi
nci
alPictur
eHousev .Wednesbury(
1947)casewhichl
atercametobe
knownasthe‘ Wednesbur
ytest’
.Thecourtl
aidoutthr
eecondit
ionsi
norder
toconcl
udet heri
ghttoi
nter
vene

I
narr
ivi
ngatthedecisi
on,
thedef
endanttookint
oconsi
der
ati
ont
he
f
act
orsthatoughtnott
ohavebeentakenint
o,or

 Thedefendantf
ail
edtotakei
ntoconsi
der
ati
ont
hef
act
orst
hatought
tohav
ebeent akenint
o,or

 Thedeci
sionwassounreasonablet
hatanyr
easonabl
eaut
hor
it
y
woul
dneverconsi
deri
mposi ngit
.

Thecourthel
dthati
tcoul
dnotintervenet
ochanget
hedeci
sionoft
he
def
endantsimpl
ybecauseitdi
sagreedwithi
t.
3.
Procedur
alI
mpr
opr
iet
y
Iti
saf ai
lur
et ocomplywi
ththelai
ddownprocedur
es.Pr
ocedural
Impropri
etyistocov
ertwoareaswhichar
efail
uret
oobserverul
esgi
veni
n
stat
uteandt oobser
vethebasiccommon-l
awruleofj
ust
ice.

RidgevBal dwi n( 1963)isanexcl usi

vecasewher epr ocedur alfairness
showsi tsinsist enceont hejudicialrev i
ewi rrespect iveoft het ypeofbody
det er
mi ningt hemat t
er.Ridge,theChi efConst ableofBr ightonwas
suspendedont hechar gesofconspi racyt oobst ructt hecour seofj usti
ce.
Despi tethecl ear anceofal l
egationsagai nstRi dge, theJudgemade
comment swhi chcr it
ici
zedRi dge’ sconduct .Fol lowingt hat,Ridgewas
dismi ssedf rom t heforcebuthewasnoti nvitedt oat tendt hemeet i
ng
whi chhaddeci dedhi sdismi ssal.Later ,hewasgi venanoppor t
uni t
yt obe
hear dbef oret hecommi tteewhi chhaddi smi ssedhi sappeal .Ridget hen
appeal edt otheHouseofLor dst hatthecommi t
teehadt otallyviolatedthe
rulesofnat ural justi
ce.Thi scasehasbeeni mpor tantbecauseoft he
emphasi sont hel i
nkexistingbet weent her ightofaper sont obehear dand
ther i
ghtt oknowt hecasebr oughtagai nsthi m.

4.
Propor
ti
onal
it
y
Proporti
onali
tymeanst hattheconcernedadmi ni
strati
veactionshouldnot
bemor eforceful
thanitrequir
est obe.Theprinci
pleofpr oport
ionali
ty
i
mpl i
esthatthecourthast onecessaril
ygointotheadv antagesand
di
sadvantagesoft heacti
oncal l
edintoquesti
on.Unl esstheso-call
ed
administr
ati
veactioni
sadv antageousandi nthepubl i
cinter
est,suchan
acti
oncannotbeuphel d.Thisdoct r
inetr
iestobalancemeanswi thends.

Cour
tsi
nIndi
ahavebeenadher
ingt
ot hi
sdoctri
nef
oralongt
imebut
Cour
tsi
nEnglandst
art
edusi
ngitaf
terthepassi
ngoft
heHumanRights
Act, 1998.I
nthetestofproport
ionali
ty,
thecourtquashestheexer
ciseof
discreti
onarypowersinwhichthereisnoreasonablerel
ati
onbetweenthe
objectivetobeachievedandthemeansofachi evingit
.Ift
headminist
rat
ive
actionisdispr
oporti
onatetothemi schi
ef,
itwil
lbequashed.

InHindConst ructionCo.v .Workmen( 1965) ,somewor ker

scalledfora
hol
idayandr emai nedabsent .Theywer elaterdismi ssedfr
om servi
ce.The
courtheldthatthewor ker
sshouldhav ebeenwar nedandf i
nedinst
eadof
abruptl
ybeingdi smissedi napermanentmanner .Itwasoutoft he
questi
ont othi
nkt hatanyr easonableempl oyerwoul dhavegiv
ensuch
ext
remepuni shment .Thecourtheldthatt hepunishmenti mposedont he
workmenwasnotonl ysever
ebutalsodi spropor t
ionate.
Fiv
et y
pesofwri
tsareavai
lablef
orjudi
cial
revi
ewofadmini
str
ativ
eactionsunderArti
cle
32,andArt
icl
e226oftheIndianConsti
tuti
on.

Wr
itofHabeasCor
pusl
i
ter
all
ymeans"
Youmayhav
ethebody
"thi
s
writi
sissuedtosecur ethereleaseofaper sonfrom ill
egaldet
entionor
withoutl
egaljust
if
icati
on.Insimplewords, Courtdi
r ectsthepersonand
evenauthori
tywhohasdet ainedanindi
vidualtobringsuchper sonbefore
CourtsothattheCour tmaydeci dethevali
dity
,just
ificati
on,j
uri
sdict
ionof
suchdetenti
on.Iti
st obef i
ledbyanyper son.

Wr
itofMandamusmeans"
Tocommandt
hepubl
i
caut
hor
it
y"t
o
per
for
mi t
spubl
icdutyi
nI ndi
a.I
tisadiscret
ionaryr
emedyev enasallf
ive
wri
tsareadi
scr
eti
onaryremedyinnature.Courthasful
lpowertoref
useto
ent
ert
ainawri
tpet
it
ion.Thiswri
tcannotbeissuedonPr esi
dentor
Gover
nor.

Wr
itofQuoWar
rant
oisananci
entcommonl
awr
emedy
.Iti
sused
againstanint
ruderorusur
perofpubli
coff
ice.Lit
eral
l
ymeans"Whatisyour
authori
ty"
.Courtdi
rect
stheconcernedper
sont hatbywhataut
hori
tyhe
holdstheoffi
ce.TheCourtmayexpelapersonf r
om theof
fi
ceifhefi
nds
thatheisnotenti
tl
edtoobtai
nsuchanof f
ice.

Wr
itofPr
ohi
bit
ioni
sanext
raor
dinar
ypr
erogat
ivewr
itofpr
event
ion;
it
seekstoprev
entCourts,
Tri
bunals,
Quasi
-j
udi
cial
author
iti
esandoffi
cer
s
fr
om exceedi
ngthei
rjuri
sdi
cti
on.Themainobj
ecti
veofthiswri
tist
o
prev
enttheencr
oachmentofj
uri
sdi
cti
on.I
tisbasedupont
hef
amous
sayi
ng"Prev
enti
onisbet
tert
hancur
e."

Wr
itofCer
ti
orar
ideal
swi
thamet
hodt
obr
ingt
her
ecor
dof
subordinateCourtbef or
etheSuperiorCour tforcorr
ecti
onofjur
isdict
ionor
err
orofl awcommi t
tedbyt hem.Inasi mplewor d,i
fanyinf
eri
orCour t
deci
dedt hecasebey onditspowersthanApexCour tandHighCour ts
corr
ectt heerrorbyissuingthiswri
t.Earl
i
eri twasusedi nf
orcri
mi nal
mattersbutlateron, i
twasst art
edtousei tcivi
lcasestoo.
Concl
usi
on
TheJudi cial r
eviewofadmi nistrativeact i
oni sinherenti nourConst i
tuti
onal
schemewhi chisbasedonr uleofl awandsepar ati
onofpower s.Itis
consideredt obet hebasicf eat uresofourConst it
ution, whichcannotbe
abrogatedev enbyexer cisingt heConst ituentpowerofpar l
iament .I
tisthe
mostef fect i
ver emedyav ail
ableagai nsttheadmi ni
st r
at i
veexcesses.Wel l
i
tisposi ti
vesenseamongt hemassest hatiftheadmi nist
rati
onunder t
akes
anywor koract ingunderdi scr etionpowerconf err
eduponi teitherby
statut
oryr ulesorundert hepr ov isionsoft heConst itutionofIndia.Ifiti
s
fail
uretoexer ci
sedi scr
etionorabuseofdi screti
onpowert oset tl
eitsscore
orgainanypr ivatepr of
itduet ot hisdiscretionpower ,thenonl yopt i
on
beforethepubl i
cist ogot ojudi ciaryunderAr t
icl
e32, 136orAr ticl
e226of
theConst i
t uti
onofI ndia.

Themai npurposeofj udicial revi

ewi stoensuret hatthelawsenact edby
thel
egislatur
econf or
mt ot her ul
eofl aw.Judicialr
eviewhascer tain
i
nherentlimit
ati
ons.Itismor esuitedforadjudicati
onofdi sput
est hanfor
perf
ormingadmi nistr
ati
v ef unct i
ons.Iti
sfortheexecut i
vetoadmi nist
er
thel
awandf unct
ionofj udici aryistoensurethatgov ernmentcarriesout
i
tsdutyinaccordancewi tht hepr ovi
sionoftheConst ituti
onofIndia.
Ref
erence
 M.
P.Jai
n:Pr
inci
plesofAdmi
nist
rat
iveLaw

 www.
legal
bit
es.
in

 bl
og.
ipl
eader
s.i
n