Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26. In Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar reported in (2003) 4 SCC 579, at paragraphs No.13 to 15, the Supreme Court explained the manner in which discretionary power has to be exercised, while discharging an administrative function. In the above judgment, the Supreme Court held that in matters relating to administrative functions, if a decision is tainted by any vulnerability as such illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety, Courts should not hesitate to interfere, if the action falls within any of the categories stated supra.

"14. The present trend of judicial opinion is to restrict the doctrine of immunity from judicial review to those class of cases which relate to deployment of troops, entering into international treaties etc. The distinctive features of some of these recent cases signify the willingness of the courts to assert their power to scrutinize the factual basis upon which discretionary powers have been exercised. One can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground is "illegality", the second "irrationality", and the third "procedural impropriety". These principles were highlighted by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (commonly known as CCSU case). If the power has been exercised on a non- consideration or non-application of mind to relevant factors, the exercise of power will be regarded as manifestly erroneous. If a power (whether legislative or administrative) is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous, such exercise of power will stand vitiated. (See CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.) The effect of several decisions on the question of jurisdiction has been summed up by Grahame Aldous and John Alder in their book Applications for Judicial Review, Law and Practice thus:

(Also see Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)

15. The court will be slow to interfere in such matters relating to administrative functions unless decision is tainted by any vulnerability enumerated above: like illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Whether the action falls within any of the categories has to be established. Mere assertion in that regard would not be sufficient.

17. Before summarizing the substance of the principles laid down therein we shall refer to the passage from the judgment of Lord Greene in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn. (KB at p.229 :

"Retain till 31.12.2004."

71. What is disclosed in the files is only periodical bald entries made by the Sub inspector of Police, sitting in his police station, by asking the petitioner to go over to the police station every month. There is not only procedural impropriety, but there is also no prima facie material for seeking extension, ie., retention of his name in the history sheet. The Sub Divisional Officer who is enjoined with the power to consider the request, after examination of all the details has mechanically approved the request, without any application of mind. Perusal of the same, shows that both the officers have grossly failed in their duties and not applied their mind, to the object sought to be achieved and there is absolutely nothing to indicate their subjective satisfaction on the basis of the twin tests, "relevance and reason", which are to be satisfied, where discretion is conferred on any authority.