Administrative law paper code:2049

Q.No. 1) what is rule of law? To what extent the concept of rule of law has been adopted
in the Indian constitutionalism? Critically examine.
The basis of Administrative Law is the ‘Doctrine of the Rule of Law’.
The expression ‘Rule of Law’ has been derived from the French phrase ‘la principle de
legalite’, i.e. a Government based on the principles of law.
Law may be taken to mean mainly a rule or principle which governs the external actions of the
human beings and which is recognised and applied to the affairs in a country where, in main,
the law is observed and order is kept. It is an expression synonymous with law and order.
It was expounded for the first time by Sir Edward Coke, and was developed by Prof. A. V.
Dicey in his book 'The law of the Constitution' published in 1885.
According Coke, in a battle against King, he should be under God and the Law, thereby the
Supremacy of Law is established.
Dicey regarded rule of law as the bedrock of the British Legal System. His doctrine is accepted
in the constitutions of U.S.A. and India. According to Prof. Dicey, rules of law contains three
principles:
1. Supremacy of Law;
2. Equality before Law; and
3. Predominance of Legal Spirit.
RULE OF LAW UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of the country. The doctrine of Rule of Law has
been adopted in Indian Constitution. The ideals of the Constitution, justice. liberty and equality
are enshrined in the preamble. Part III of the Constitution of India guarantees the Fundamental
rights.
Kesavanda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973)
Supreme Court enunciated that rule of law as one of the most important aspects of the doctrine
of basic structure.
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978)
the Supreme Court declared that Article 14 strikes against arbitrariness.
Indira Nehru Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975)
article 329-A was inserted in the Constitution under 39th amendment, which provided certain
immunities to the election of office of Prime Minister from judicial review. The Supreme Court
declared Article 329-A as invalid since it abridges the basic structure of the Constitution.
A.D.M. Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla (1976)
(Popularly known as the Habeas Corpus Case) The question before Supreme Court was,
whether there was any rule of law in India apart front Article 21 of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court by majority held that there is no rule of law other than the constitutional rule
of law. Article 21 is our rule of law. If it is suspended, there is no rule of law.

Q.No.2) Discuss judicial control over the delegated legislation with leading cases
Judicial control over delegated legislation is exercised by applying two tests
A] substantive ultra vires
B] procedural ultra vires
Ultra vires means beyond powers. When a subordinate legislation goes beyond the scope of
authority conferred on the delegate to enact it is known as substantive ultra vires.
When a subordinate legislation is enacted without complying with the procedural requirements
prescribed by the parent act or by the general law it is known as procedural ultra vires.
Judicial control of delegated legislation exercised by applying the doctrine of ultra vires.
1. Where parent act is ultra vires the constitution.
The constitution prescribes the boundaries with in which the legislature can act. If the
parent act or enabling act is ultra viresthe constitution the rules and regulations made
thereunder would also be null and void. The parent act is declared ultra vires the
constitution, if it violates
➢ Express constitutional limits
Invalidity of rules and regulation arises if the parent act is violated of express limit
prescribed by the constitution. The legislator powers of the union and states are
distributed in article 246 of the constitution. If either legislature encroaches upon the
exclusive sphere of the other as demarcated in 3 list (i) Union list (ii) State list (iii)
concurrent list, it’s legislation will be ultra vires.
➢ Implied constitutional limits
Implied constitutional limits are those which where enunciated in Delhi Laws Act case.
in this case the Supreme Court declared the later part of clause 2 bad because it
conferred power on the administrative agency to repeal laws which, according to the
court, is an essential legislative power.
Hamdard Dawakhana v. union of India
St. Johns teachers training institute v. regional director, national council for
teacher education

➢ Constitutional rights
No legislature has competence to pass a law which violates the provision of commerce
clause, Right to property under article 300A, Article 21 and part III of the constitution.
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh
In this case the order passed by the deputy Commissioner was held ultra vires. The act
which it was made violated the fundamental right to carryon trade, business, profession
and occupation guaranteed under article 19 (1)(g) of the constitution of India.
2. Where delegated legislation is ultra vires the constitution.
➢ General
The parent act may not be ultra viresthe constitution and delegated legislation may be
consistent with the parent act, yet the delegated legislation may be held invalid on the
ground that it is ultra
vires the constitution.
Narendra kumar v. union of India
In this case SC held that even if the parent act is constitutional, the validity of delegated
legislation can still be challenged on the ground that the law cannot be presumed to
authorise anything which may be in contravention of the constitution.
Dwaraka Prasad v. State of UP
➢ Arbitrary power is ultravires the constitution
Himmat v. commissioner of police
 In this case under section 33(1) of the Bombay police act, 1951 had authorised the
commissioner of police to make rule for the regulation of conduct and behaviour of
assemblies and processions on or along the streets. The rule was held ultra vires on the
ground that it violates article19(b).
➢ Theory of derivative immunity
When parent act cannot be challenged before the court because it is protected under
Article 31B of the constitution on account of its placement in the 9th schedule, the
question is whether the delegated legislation made there under can be challenged?
Vasan lal magan bhai v. State of Bombay and Latafat ali khan v. State of UP
It was held that the parent act is saved under article 31B and cannot be challenged, the
delegated legislation also cannot be challenged as being violated of any fundamental
rights on the derivative protection.
Prag Ice and oil mills v. union of india
In this case the constitutional validity of mustard oil order, 1977 was challenged. The
supreme court held that even in a case where a parent act cannot be challenged before
the court because of protection of article 31B of the constitution on account of its
placement in the 9th schedule.
3. Where delegated legislation is ultra vires the parent act
Delegated legislation can be challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires the parent act
or enabling statute or any general law. It is an accepted principle that the authority of
delegated legislation must be exercised within the authority.
➢ Delegated legislation in excess of the power conferred by the parent act
If the subordinate authority keeps within the power delegated, the delegated legislation
is up held valid.
Mohd. Yasin v. town area committee

In this case the parent act has authorise the municipality to charge fee for only for use
and occupation of some property of committee, but the town area committee made some
bye laws imposing levy on wholesalers . the court held that the bye laws beyond the
power conferred on the committee where as such ultravires.
Ajoy kumar Banerjee v. union of India

➢ Delegated legislation in conflict with the parent act

The validity of delegated legislation can be challenged on the ground that it is in conflict
with any provision of the parent act.
D.T.O. v. Hajelay
State of Karnataka v. ganesh kamath
Supreme court Employees,welfare association v. union of India
➢ Delegated legislation in conflict with the prescribed procedure of the parent act
Sometimes it happens that the parent act lays down procedure which must be followed
by the administrative body while exercising law making power under it. If the
procedure not followed, the delegated legislation may be declared bad.
Banwari lal agarwalla v. state of bihar
4. Malafide : Bad Faith
In England delegated legislation may be challenged on the ground of malafides or
improper motives of rule- making authority.
 R. v. comptroller-General of patents
Narendra Kumar v. union of India
in this case while deciding the validity of nonferrous metal control order 1958 the
supreme court observed mala fides have not been suggested and we are proceeding on
the assumption that the central government was honestly of the opinion….. from these
observations it is inferred that courts may consider the malafide exercise of power by
the statutory authority.
Conclusion:
On the whole judicial review of delegated legislation is more of symbolic value rather
than of much practical value as a control mechanism over delegated legislation. To
make judicial control more efficacious it is necessary that delegating legislation does
not confer power in two broad and generalized language. In such case the court may
find extremely difficult to hold a rule as falling outside the scope of power delegated.
This is what is envisaged by the doctrine of excessive delegation. In that case, delegated
legislation will be ultra vires if it goes beyond basic policy underlying the parent Act
passed by the legislature.

Q.No. 3. Explain the various exceptions to the principle of natural justice.

The normal rule is that a person who is affected by administrative action is entitled to claim
natural justice, the requirement may be excluded under certain exceptional circumstances. Each
of the rules of natural justice yields to and changes with the exigencies of different situations.
They do not apply in the same manner to situations which are not alike. These rules are not
cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in a legal strait-jacket. They are not immutable but
flexible. There are exceptional situations which demand exclusion of the principles of natural
justice. In the following cases, the requirement of natural justice may be excluded:
1. Statutory exclusion
In India parliament is not supreme and therefore statutory exclusion is not final. The
principles of natural justice do not supplant the law but supplement it. It follows where
the statute is silent about the compliance with the principles of natural justice, such
statutory silence is taken to imply observance of principles of natural justice.
Union of india v. J.N. Sinha
2. Legislative function
Legislative action, plenary or subordinate, is not subject to the rules of natural justice.
This is so because these rules lay down a policy without reference to particular
individual. A legislative action, for example, price fixing, is a direction of general
character, not directed against a particular person or individual manufacturer or trader.
Charan lal sahu v. union of India (Bhopal gas disaster case)
In this case the constitutionality of Bhopal gas disaster act 1985 was challenged because
the provision of the act took away rights of victims to establish their own right which
was a denial of access to justice without a procedure established by law.
3. Emergency
In exceptional cases of emergency where prompt and preventive action is required the
principles of natural justice need not be observed. Where a dangerous building is
required to be demolished to save human lives or where banking company is required
to be wound up to protect the interest of depositors etc.
4. Public interest
 The requirement of notice and hearing may be excluded where prompt action is to be
taken in the interest of public safety, public health or public morality.
Maneka Gandhi v. union of india
5. Impracticability
Judicial approach in applying the rules of natural justice to fact- situations is not
theoretical but pragmatic. Where the number of persons is so large that it is not
practicable to give all of them the opportunity of being heard, the court does not insist
on observance of principles of natural justice.
Bihar school examination board v. subhash Chandra
R. Radha krishanan v. Osmania university
6. Academic evaluation
Where a student is removed from an educational institution on grounds of
unsatisfactory academic performance, the requirement of pre decisional hearing is
excluded.
Jawahar lal Nehru university v. B.S. Narwal
7. Interim disciplinary action
Where disciplinary action is preventive in nature, the observance of the rules of natural
justice is excluded.
Abhay kumar v. k. Srinivasan
8. Contractual Transaction
State of Gujrat v. M.P. shah charitable trust
In this case SC held that the principles of natural justice are not attracted in case of
termination of an arrangement in any contractual field. The reason is clear that
termination of an arrangement/agreement is neither a quasi- judicial nor an
administrative act. Hence the question of duty to act judicially does not arise.
9. “Useless formality” theory
“useless formality” theory is another exception for exclusion of the principles of natural
justice. Where on the admitted or undisputed facts only one conclusion is possible and
under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not insist on application
of the principles of natural justice because it would be futile to order its observance.
Therefore, where result would not be different and it is demonstrable beyond doubt,
order of compliance with the principles of natural justice will not be justified.

Q.No. 4. Discuss the scope of “writ of mandamus” for judicial review of administrative
action.
a) Nature and scope: mandamus is a command which is issued by a court to an authority
asking it to perform a public duty imposed upon it by the constitution or any other law.
Mandamus demands some kind of activity on the part of the body or person to whom it
is addressed. Thus, when a body omits to decide a matter which it is bound to decide.
b) Functional dimensions: the purpose of mandamus is to keep the public authorities
within the ambit of their jurisdiction while exercising public functions.
c) Conditions: a writ of mandamus can be issued in the following conditions:
I. Right: the foundation of mandamus is the existence of the right. No one can
claim a mandamus unless he has a legal right. There must be legally protected
right before one suffering a legal grievance can claim a mandamus.
S.P.Manocha v. state of MP
 Guru swamy v, state of mysore

II. Public interest: formerly, the position was that only a person having a specific
legal right to the performance of duty by the public authority had standing to
ask for mandamus.
III. Duty: mandamus is used to enforce a duty the performance of which is
imperative and not optional or discretionary with the public authority. Thus
where there was a duty cast upon the deputy commissioner to pay the money
due to the applicant as a writ of mandamus,
Manjula manjari v. director of public instruction
IV. Public duty: mandamus is employed to enforce the performance of public
duties by public authorities. A duty will be of a public nature if it is created by
the provisions of the constitution.
P. Nalla Thampy thera v. union of india
Ram pal v. state
V. Private duty: Generally, the rule has been that a mandamus would lie only to
enforce a duty which is public in nature. Therefore, a mandamus was not issued
to enforce a duty private in nature and arising out of contract.
I.T.Commr. v. state of madras
VI. Demand and refusal: the petition for writ of mandamus must be preceded by
a demand of justice and such demand must have been met by a refusal
S.I.Syndicate v. union of india

d) Grounds: mandamus can be issued on all those grounds on which certiorari and
prohibition can be issued.
1) Error of jurisdiction
a) Lack of jurisdiction
b) Excess of jurisdiction
2) Jurisdictional facts
3) Violation of the principles of natural justice
4) Error of law apparent on the face of record
5) Abuse of jurisdiction
e) Who may apply: the general rule is that a person whose right has been infringed may
apply for the writ of mandamus.
f) Against whom: A writ of mandamus will not be issued against the President or the
Governor of the state for the exercise of powers and performance of duty.
g) Alternative remedy:If the petitioner approaches the court with an allegation that his
FR has been infringed, the writ of mandamus will not be refused on the ground of
alternative.
h) Remedial dimensions:the various aspects of mandamus show that mandamus has
come to stay as the leading, certiorarified, residuary and all-pervading remedy in
administrative law in India.

Q.No.6) Critically examine the various control over public undertakings in India.
It is necessary that some control over these corporations should be held so that the powers
granted to such corporations may not be arbitrarily exercised or abused and it may not become
the “headless fourth organ” of the government. The various controls are as follows:

A. Parliamentary control
Public corporations are created and owned by state. They are financed from the funds
supplied by the government.
i. Constituent statue
All public corporations are created by or under statutes passed by parliament or state
legislatures.
ii. Questions
Through this technique, members of parliament can discuss the functioning of
corporations by putting questions to minister concerned.in this way the parliament
ensures accountability of the corporations.
iii. Debates
A much more significant and effective method of control is furnished by a debate on
the affairs of the public corporation. occasions for this may arise when annual accounts
and reports regarding the corporation are placed before the parliament for discussion.
iv. Parliamentary committees
The most effective parliamentary control over the public corporations is exercised
through the parliamentary committees. The committees functions like to examine the
reports and accounts, reports of comptroller and auditor general on public corporation,
to examine the context of the autonomy and efficiency of the public corporations.

B. Judicial control

i. General
A public corporation is a juristic person having legal entity to sue and be sued.
jurisdiction of courts over a public corporation is the same as it is over s private or
public company, which can sue and be sued like any ordinary person.
ii. Traditional view
The traditional theory has been that, as a public corporation is created by a statute, it
must exercise its power within the four corners of the constituent statute.
Lakshama
naswami v. L.I.C. of India
iii. Modern view
In course of time, the courts have been expanding the scope and extent of their control
over public corporations beyond the confines of the doctrine of ultra vires.Being a
creation of state, a public corporation must be subject to the same constitutional
limitations as the state itself.
Fertilizer corporation kamgar union v. union of india
iv. General principles
Judicial activism in exercising control over public corporation is based on the general
principles of functional jurisprudence.
Sukhdev singh v. bhagatram
R.D. Shetty v. international airport authority
 C. Governmental control

Since government is the custodian of public interest, it also exercises control and
supervision over affairs of public corporations.
I. Appointment and removal
The power to appoint and remove the chairman and members of a public corporation is
vested in the government by the statute.
II. Finance
Effective control over a public corporation is held when such corporation has to depend
on the government for finance.
III. Directives
An important technique evolved to reconcile governmental control with the autonomy
of the undertaking is to authorise the government to issue directives to public
undertaking on matters of “policy, without interfering with the matters of day to day
administration”.
Fertilizer corporation of india v. workman
IV. Rules and regulations
As usual, a constituent statute providing for creation of a public corporation contains
provisions for making rules and regulations.
V. Suggestions
There is need of compromise between the autonomy of a statutory corporation in the
matters of day to day administration and the control which must be exercised by a
welfare state over such corporation.

D. Public control

Public enterprises are owned by the people and those who run them are accountable to
the people. Therefore, highly desirable that the public corporations must respond to the
need and the opinion of the people.
I. Mass media
Mass media plays a significant role. In India this control mechanism is highly weak
because television and radio are not independent and autonomous bodies but mere
government departments.
II. Consumer councils
These are bodies established under the authority of the statute constituting the
corporations concerned with the object of enabling consumers to ventilate their
grievances.
III. Membership
Parliament has arranged for members of certain of the public corporations to be
nominated by local authorities and other bodies interested in the functions of particular
corporation.
IV. Consumers and public undertakings
There is a clear tendency on the part of the consumers to approach courts for the purpose
of ventilating their grievances.
Q.No. 7) Examine the contractual liability of the state with the help of leading cases.

Art. 298, 299, 300 of the constitution deal with the state contracts. 298 enable the
government to enter into contract for the purpose of carrying out the function of the
State. Art. 299, gives the essential formalities, which the government must fulfil while
entering into contract. Art. 300 deals with the enforcement of the State liability.
These articles are not the complete law in respect of the state contracts. In addition to
these provisions, the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is also applicable. Therefore,
government contracts must also fulfil section 10 of the Contract Act, which deals with
the essential requirements of a valid contract. Sec. 25 deals with consideration and secs.
73, 74 and 75 deal with the determination of the quantum of damages are also
applicable. But some of the provision such as the provision relating to capacity on the
ground of age and mind are not applicable to the government.

Art. 300 points out that the liability of the Union of India and States will be the same
as that of the dominion of India and the provinces under the Government of India Act,
1935. The word expressed in the contract might suggest that the government contract
must be in some particular form, the Supreme Court has held that formal document
need not be executed.

The crown in England enjoyed immunity being sovereign, but, the East India Company
which was essentially a commercial concern was not entitled to the sovereign
immunity.
Bank of Bengal vs United Company
Supreme Court of Bengal held that the company had no sovereign character, and could
not escape liability under the promissory notes.
Narendra Chandra vs Union of India
Court held that auction of Ganja license, being a method of collection of tax, was a
sovereign function and therefore, the highest bidder could not succeed in a suit for
specific performance of the contract.

1. The contract must be expressed to be made by the President /Governor as the

cases may be.
Karamshi vs. State of Bombay
In this case The appellant entered into a contract with the minister of PWD for the
irrigation of his landholdings. The contract was repudiated on the ground that it was
not expressed to be made by the Governor. The suit filed by him was dismissed on
the ground that it did not meet the mandatory requirements of art. 299.
However, the expression may be in any form.
A. L. Ralia Ram vs Union of India:
In this caseIt was argued by the government that arbitration agreement was not
properly executed. But the Supreme Court brushed the contention aside and upheld
the arbitration agreement because it had complied with all the requirements of Art.
299 though it was not in any particular form.
State of Madras vs. R.Ranganathan Chettiar
 The High Court held that in view of the mandatory requirement that the contract
must be in the form a formal deed, the contract was inchoate and hence not
enforceable.
A contrary view was taken by the
Patna High Court in Chandra Bhan vs. State of Bihar
2. The contract must be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor as
the case may be.
It is required that the competent authority must execute the contract on behalf of the
President of India or the governor as the case may be and if it is not so mentioned,
the contract will be invalid because it is also a mandatory condition. In order to
mitigate the harshness of this ruling the Supreme Court held that if a competent
authority has signed the contract in its official capacity, it will be sufficient
compliance with the requirements if Art. 299.
Davecos Garment Factory vs. State of Rajasthan
In this case The contract for the supply of police uniforms was signed by the
Inspector General of Police who did not mention that he was signing on behalf of
the Governor.
3. The contract must be executed by a person authorized by the President or
Governor as the case may be.
The contract must be signed by an authorized person is the most important condition
of this rule. However, Art. 299 does not provide for any specific mode of
authorization. Therefore, the usual procedure of notification in the official gazette
for this purpose.
State of Bihar vs Karamchand Thaper & Brothers Ltd
In this case to avoid the hardships which this requirement may entail, Supreme
Court held that in the absence of any specific authorization, implied authorization
may be considered as substantial complaisance with this requirement.
Union of India vs. N. K. Private Ltd
In this case it was held that in the absence of evidence from which the authority can
be implied, the contract becomes unenforceable.
If the agreement does not fulfil the requirement of Art. 299, the question of
ratification arises. The Supreme Court had held that in such a case, the government
cannot ratify the agreement.
New Marine Construction Company vs Government of India
The Supreme Court held that the government must compensate for the coal, which
was supplied to it and consumed by it even though the agreement did not fulfil the
requirement of Art. 299. Thus whether the government has obtained the benefit, it
has to pay for it. But the complication arises when the government does not get the
benefit under the contract.
State of U.P. vs Murarilal & Brothers
In this case It was held that, as the contract did not fulfil the requirements of Art.
299, it was not enforceable because he government did not derive any benefit under
the contract. Sec. 70 did not apply. Secs. 230 & 235 presuppose a valid contract and
therefore, these sections are also not applicable to a case where the contract is
invalid because of non-compliance with section 299.
Q.No. 8) Explain how far Lokayukta helps to redress citizen’s grievances against the
administrative faults
OMBUDSMAN
‘Ombudsman’ means ‘a delegate, agent, officer or commissioner.’ A precise definition
of ‘Ombudsman’ is not possible, but Garner rightly describes him as “an officer of
Parliament, having as his primary function, the duty of acting as an agent for
Parliament, for the purpose of safeguarding citizens against abuse or misuse of
administrative power by the executive.”
The Ombudsman inquires and investigates into complaints made by citizens against
abuse of discretionary power, maladministration or administrative inefficiency and
takes appropriate actions. For that purpose, very wide powers are conferred on him. He
has access to departmental files. The complainant is not required to lead any evidence
before the Ombudsman to prove his case. It is the function and duty of the Ombudsman
to satisfy himself whether or not the complaint was justified. He can even act suo motu.
He can grant relief to the aggrieved person as unlike the powers of a civil court, his
powers are not limited.

Ombudsman in India
Institution started functioning in the year 2000 as a 7-member body with a Retd. Judge
of the High Court as its Chairman. The successor government changed the constitution
and made it a single member body through an amendment of the Panchayath Raj Act
in the year 2001.
With effect from 17-3-2008 the office of Ombudsman is held by Mr. Justice M.R.
Hariharan Nair, a former Judge of the High Court of Kerala. His appointment is for a
term of 3 years which ends on 16-3-2011.
During the preceding 3 years the office was held by Justice T.K. Chandrasekhar Das
and before that by Mr. Justice K.P. Radhakrishna Menon. The Chairman of the 7-
member body which was functional in the year 2000 was Mr. Justice P.A. Mohamed.
All of them have rendered exemplary service to the institution.

LOKAYUKTA
Problems of Redressal of Citizens Grievances is the subject on which the
Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Late Shri. Morarji Desai, who later
became the Prime Minister of India gave its first report. It is that report which
recommended for the establishment of Lokpal and Lokayukta institutions at the Central
and State level respectively for redressed of citizens grievances by investigating into
administrative actions taken by or on behalf of Central Government or State
Government or certain public authorities. These institutions were intended to serve as
institutions independent of the Government concerned and as institutions to supplement
the judicial institutions headed by Chief Justices or Judges of Supreme Court of India
or High Court of the State.
The recommendation for appointment of Lokayuktas at the States level, as indicated in
that report, was made to improve the standards of Public Administration, by looking
into complaints against administrative actions, including cases of corruption,
favouritism and official indiscipline in administrative machinery. It is the said
recommendation which made the Karnataka State Legislature to enact the Karnataka
 Lokayukta Act, 1984 for investigating into allegations or grievances in respect of
administrative actions relatable to matters specified in List II or List III of the VII
Schedule to the Constitution of India.
Karnataka Lokayukta is the ombudsman institution of the Indian state of Karnataka. It
was established in 1984 to investigate and report on corruption in the government and
to redress public grievances related to state government employees.
This lokayukta that was once considered the most powerful such institution in the
country. However, it was stripped off its investigative powers before transferring them
to the Anti-Corruption Bureau in 2016.
The public servants who are covered by the act include: CM, all ministers of the state,
legislators, all officers of the state government, all officers and employees of public
authorities.
Appointment
Term
Removal
Provisions relating to complaints and investigations
Powers of the lokayukta

Q.No.8) write a short note on any 2 of the following

a) Administrative directions
The state in excercise of its executive power is charged with the duty and the responsibility
of carrying administration of the state. So long as the government does not go against the
provisions of the constitution or any law, the width and amplitude of its executive power
cannot be circumscribed. In addition to rules and other forms of delegated legislation, if
there is no enactment covering a particular aspect, the government can carry on the
administration by issuing a administrative directions.
Directions are issued for a variety of purposes. Administrative authorities churn out
directions through letters, circulars, orders, memoranda, pamphlets, public notices, press
notes, etc. At times, directions may even be published in the government Gazatte.
A direction may be specific, being applicable to a particular purpose, or a particular case;
or, it may be of a general nature, laying down general principles, policies, practices or
procedures to be followed in similar cases. The administration issues from time to time,
circulars or public notices under its general administrative power or even, at times, under
statutory powers.
Directions identification
Enforceability of directions
Exceptions to the rule of non-enforceability
Publication of directions
Directions to quasi-judicial bodies
Amendment in directions
Defects of the system of directions

b) Classification of administrative action

Administrative actions are classified into 3 categories
1. Legislative actions or quasi-legislative function
 When any administrative authorities excercises law making power delegated to it by
the legislature it is known as the rule-making action of the administrive or quasi-
legislative actions. It consisting of rules, regulations, by-laws etc.
For example:
Fixation of price
Declaration of a place to be a market place
Establishment of municipal corporation.
2. Judicial actions or quasi-judicial functions
The word quasi means not exactly. Now a day’s administrations excercise varities of
judicial functions.
For example:
Disciplinary proceedings against students
Dismissal of employee on the ground of misconduct
Cancellation, suspension, revocation or refusal to renew licence.

3. Administrative action or administrative functions

Administrative action is generally based on governmental policy or expediency.
Administrative action is subjective rather than objective. The grounds on which the
action is taken and the procedure for taking the action are a matter of discretion of the
authority which is taking action.
Example:
Preventive detention
Action setting up a commission of enquiry
Fact finding action
Entering names in the register of police

c) Quasi-judicial functions
Often powers are given to the administrative authorities to decide the rights and liabilities
of individuals, as if they are courts. But in discharge of these powers, the concerned
authorities are not acting in judicial capacity but they are acting in administrative
capacity. Hence they are called quasi-judicial authorities.
The word ‘quasi’ means ‘not exactly.’ Generally, an authority is described as ‘quasi-
judicial’ when it has some of the attributes or trappings of judicial functions, but not all.
It is often very difficult to distinguish between administrative and quasi-judicial
functions, because both the functions involve determination of rights of individuals.
Therefore, it is important to note certain important characteristics of quasi-judicial
functions.
CHARACTERISTICS OF QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
1. LIS INTER PARTES
As the name implies, a quasi-judicial function is one which resembles judicial function.
Hence, in a quasi-judicial function, there is a dispute between two persons.
Shankarlal vs Shankarlal
High Court judge confirmed an auction sale by a company during the winding up
proceedings, it was held that the confirmation process involved settlement of dispute
between the auction purchaser and the creditors of the company, and therefore, was a
quasi-judicial function.
2. PROVISION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
The provision of appeal
Appellate authorities
Nagendra Nath Bora vs. CommissionerHills Division
It was held that the function of the appellate authorities under the Eastern Bengal and
Assam Act, which regulated the sale of country spirit by licences, was quasi-judicial.
Shivji Nathubhai vs. India
It was held that the Central Government in reviewing orders of the State Government
had to act quasi-judicially.
An appeal against administrative order is administrative
India vs. Jesus Sales Corporation
An appeal under the third proviso to sec. 4M(1) of the Imports and Exports Control Act,
1947
3. POWERS OF COURT
State of Maharashtra vs. Marwanjee F. Desai
Where an authority is invested with the powers of the court, it is presumed that he is
required to act quasijudicially.
Manish Dixit vs. State of Rajasthan
Tahsildar conducted the identification test of jewellery recovered in a case of abduction.
4. ADVERSE CIVIL CONSEQUENCES
5. DUTY TO ACT JUDICIALLY
Shivji Nathubhai vs. India
The Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 framed under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation
and Development) Act, 1948, provided that anyone aggrieved by the decision of the State
Government refusing to grant a mining lease may apply to the Central Government to
review the order of the State Government. The Act required the Central Government to
decide the matter before it in such a manner as it deemed ‘just and proper’. It was held
that the words ‘just and proper’ imposed a duty to act judicially upon the Central
Government.

Q.No.9. a) An young boy was arrested on the murder charges. He was tortured and
killed in the prison. His father claims compensation from the govt. decide.
Nilbati Behra v. State of Orissa
Where petitioner’s son died as a result of injuries inflicted on him while he was in
police custody. The directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the petitioner.
Government of liable for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under part
III of the Constitution of India.

b) A committee of the university had to select and recommend books of various

authors and publishers for the college students. Some of the members in the
committee were themselves authors whose books were selected. Decide.
This problem comes under personal bias
J. Mohapatra and co. v. state of Orissa
In this case State of Orissa had constituted an Assessment Committee in order to
recommend and select books of various authors and publishers for various school
subjects. Some of the members of the committee were themselves authors whose books
were also to be considered for selection. The books of the members of the assessment
committee were got approved. The action of the government was challenged on the
ground of bias. Quashing the action, the supreme court said that possibility of bias cannot
be ruled out because some members whose books were in the list for selection were
members of the assessment committee.

c) sec 44 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 gave discretionary power of the police
commissioner to grant or refuse permission for any public meeting to be held on a
public street. Decide the validity of the power.
This problem comes under judicial control over delegated legislation. Under arbitrary
power is ultra vires the constitution.
Himmat v. Commissioner of police
Section 33(1) of Bombay police act, 1951 had authorised the commissioner of police to
make rules for regulation of conduct and behaviour of assemblies and processions on or
along the streets. Rule 7 made thereunder provided that no public meeting will be held
without previous permission of the commissioner. The rule was held ultra vires on the
ground that it conferred arbitrary powers on the commissioner in granting or refusing
permission and as such it imposed unreasonable restriction on the exercise of freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(b) of the constitution.