CLASSIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE

ACTIONS- UNIT 1
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
KANCHAN LAVANIA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,VSLLS, VIPS

IP UNIVERSITY, DELHI
CLASSIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

• 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
futile. 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 classification of administrative action.
• “ the dividing line between administrative power and a quasi judicial power is quite thin
and gradually obliterated…what was considered as an administrative power some years
back is now being considered quasi judicial power.”- Justice Hegde
INTRODUCTION

• Thus, speaking generally, an administrative action can be classified into four categories:
• i) Rule-making action or quasi-legislative action- to make rules, regulations, bye laws, fix
prices
• ii) Rule-decision action or quasi-judicial action- to adjudicate on disputes, impose penalty
and fines
• iii) Rule-application action or administrative action.- to investigate, to prosecute, to
prepare schemes
NEED FOR CLASSIFICATION

• 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 but if it’s an
administrative, legislative or quasi-legislative function, that’s not the case. It is therefore
imperative to determine what type of function the administrative authority performs.
• If action of executive authority is legislative in character, the requirement of
publication, laying on the table, etc should be complied with but it is not necessary in
the case of a purely administrative function.
NEED FOR CLASSIFICATION

• Again, if the function is administrative it can be delegated but not in the case of a
judicial function.
• An exercise of legislative power may not be held invalid on the ground of
unreasonableness but an administrative action can be.
• Therefore, it becomes important to determine the nature of the function performed by
the an administrative authorities.
• It is accepted that an attempt to rigidly define and demarcate is almost
impossible but it is necessary for review of executive actions.
1. RULE MAKING

• Rule-making action or quasi-legislative action – Legislature is the law-making organ of any

state. In some written constitutions, 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 III and 196 to 201 is that the law making power
can be exercised for the Union by Parliament and for the States by the respective State
legislatures.
• 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 as the rule-making power
delegated to it by the legislature, it is known as the rule-making action of the
administration or quasi-legislative action and commonly known as delegated legislation.
• Rule-making action of the administration partakes all the characteristics, which a normal
legislative action possesses. Such characteristics may be generality, prospectivity and
a behaviour that 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 particularised, retroactive and based on evidence.
II. RULE-DECISION ACTION OR QUASI-JUDICIAL
ACTION
• Today the bulk of the decisions which affect a private individual come not from courts
but from administrative agencies exercising ad judicatory powers. The reason seems to
be that since 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 of
justice, which is required in a welfare State.
• Administrative decision-making may be defined, as power to perform acts administrative
in character, but requiring incidentally some characteristics of judicial
traditions.
FEATURES

• “A quasi judicial decision is nearer the administrative decision in terms of its

discretionary element and nearer the judicial decisions in terms of procedure
and objectivity of its end product.”- Griffith & Street, Principles of Administrative Law
• Presentation of case by the parties is not always a necessary element. In many cases the
deciding authority is itself a party and yet it may decide the case. Eg- authority
effecting compulsory acquisition of the land.
• After ascertaining the facts, unlike a regular court, an administrative authority is not
bound to apply law to the facts ascertained and decision can be based on principles
of public policy or administrative discretion.
• 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 license 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. 8. Refusal to grant ‘no objection certificate’ under the
Bombay Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1953. 9. Forfeiture of pensions and gratuity. 10.
Authority granting or refusing permission for retrenchment
(III) RULE-APPLICATION ACTION OR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
• 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 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.
FEATURES

• 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 the principles of natural justice must always be observed depending
on the fact situation of each case
FEATURES

• Generally based on governmental policy and expediency.

• Administrative functions can be delegated and sub- delegated unless there is a
specific bar or prohibition in the statute.
• An administrative order can be held to be invalid on the ground of unreasonableness.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

• Some illustrations are:

• 1. an order of preventive detention
• 2. An order setting Commission of Inquiry
• 3. An order granting sanction to prosecute a public servant
• 4. An order of acquisition of property
• 5. Withdrawal from prosecution
• 6. power to issue licence or permit
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE & JUDICIAL
FUNCTION
• Key factor is element of time. A rule prescribes future pattern of conduct and creates
new rights and liabilities, whereas a decision determines rights and liabilities on the basis
of present and past facts and declares pre existing rights and liabilities.
• Adjudication deals with what law is, rule making deals with what the law will be.
• Legislation has general applicability addressed to indicated but unnamed and
unspecified persons and situations. Decisions of court of law is applicable to specific
situations and individuals.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGISLATIVE &
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION
• Legislative- needs to be published but not in case of administrative character.
• Legislative- no writ of certiorari but in case of administrative character, it can be
issued.
• In exceptional circumstances, sub delegation of legislative power allowed but it in case
of in case of administrative power, it is always possible.
• Duty to give reasons applies in case administrative order but not in case of legislative
orders.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QUASI JUDICIAL &
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION
• There is no cut and dried formula.The dividing line is very thin.
• The following determinants can help:
• 1. the nature of power conferred
• 2.The person/ persons on whom it is conferred,
• 3. the framework of the law conferring such power,
• 4. the consequence ensuing from the exercise of such power and
• 5. the manner in which such power is expected to be exercised.
CONCLUSION

• It is not the label that determines the exercise of jurisdiction of the court but the quality
and attributes of the decision.
• Trend from Duty to act judicially to duty to act fairly (can be applied even when there is
no lis).