Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Emphasis supplied) Judicial restraint in exercise of judicial review was considered in "the State of (NCT) of Delhi v. Sanjeev20" as follows:

"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."

The need for judicial restraint with regard to recommendations of expert committees, more particularly in matters relating to finance and economics, was considered by the Apex Court in "BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India22" and held:

"Nevertheless, contention is sought to be raised that the method of valuation was faulty, some assets were not taken into consideration and that Rs. 551.5 crores offered by M/s. Sterlite did not represent the correct value of 51% shares of the Company along with its controlling interest. It is not for this Court to consider whether the price which was fixed by the Evaluation Committee at Rs. 551.5 crores was correct or not. What has to be seen in exercise of judicial review of administrative action is to examine whether proper procedure has been followed and whether the reserve price which was fixed is arbitrarily low and on the face of it, unacceptable."

Noting the above principles, the Apex Court in "Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association v. State of Telangana23"

categorically held that the Court has to maintain judicial restraint while dealing with the economic policy decision of the State. The Courts cannot interfere with those decisions unless those decisions are taken in violation of principles of natural justice or in violation of any rule authorizing such authorities to take such decision. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court is limited and this Court has to examine, keeping in view the principles laid down in the above judgments, whether there is any procedural violation or violation of principles of natural justice as contended by the petitioners herein.