Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. It is settled law that any action or decision of the State or a public authority is judicially reviewable, irrespective of the sphere in which the discretion was excercised by the State or the said authority. The scope of judicial review may vary with reference to the type of matter involved. But there is no such thing as unreviewable administrative discretion. Any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or administrative or quasijudicial, is open to challenge if it is in conflict with the Constitution of India or the governing Act or the general principles of the law of the land or if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have done it. Whenever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote. If the action or the decision is perverse or if it has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong approach or if it has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous matters, the Court would be justified in interfering with the same. The repository of power should act within the bounds of the power delegated and should not abuse his power. He must act reasonably and in good faith. Where there is arbitrariness in State action Article 14 of the Constitution springs in and judicial review strikes such an action down. Every action of the executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason. Rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims and caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. An act uninformed by reason is arbitrary. Arbitrariness is anathema to State action in every sphere and wherever the vice percolates, the Court would not be impeded by technicalities to trace it and would strike it down. However, judicial review as the words imply is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. The Court is concerned not with the decision but with the decision making process. But it does not mean that the Court cannot consider the established grounds of review which extend to the substance as well as the manner of the making of administrative decisions and acts. Every State action has to be for a public purpose and must promote public benefit. The discretionary power conferred upon an authority for the public good is coupled with a duty to perform it under relevant circumstances. The fact that the exercise of the power is left to the discretion of the authority does not exonerate him from not discharging his duty. If the authority fails to discharge his duty by refusing to exercise his discretion when facts calling for its exercise exist, the Court will compel him to do so. If the discretionary power is exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably or by taking into consideration extraneous and irrelevant considerations, in the eye of law, the authority concerned must be deemed not to have exercised the discretion at all, that is, he has not discharged his duty. In such a situation also the Court will compel the authority to discharge the duty of exercising the discretion honestly and in the spirit of the statute. If the authority exercises his discretion honestly and in the spirit of the statute no mandamus will be issued directing him to exercise his discretion in a particular way. A decision resulting from the exercise of power or discretion on the dictation of some one else is ultra vires and void. We propose to examine the issues involved in this case, in the light of the above mentioned principles and parameters.