Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

37. For implementing the aforesaid renovation/modification the appellant approached the various relevant authorities for necessary sanction/approvals including inter alia, the Delhi Urban Arts Commission (DUAC), DCP (Traffic), DCP (Licensing), Fire Department and the MCD. All these sanctions/approvals were obtained including the final sanction from the MCD on 4.12.2002 wherein the MCD directed the renovation/modification project to be completed as per the sanctioned plan by 3.12.2004.

38. In our opinion, it was for the aforesaid authorities to consider whether the appellant(tm)s proposal met the requisite requirements under the law, and it is not for this Court to ordinarily go into these considerations. The Court has to maintain judicial restraint and has to ordinarily defer to the opinion of the administrators, unless there is clear violation of law or something shockingly arbitrary.

71. In Tata Cellular v.Union of India (vide paragraph 113) the Supreme Court observed:

(1)The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2)The Court does not sit as a court of appeal over administrative decisions but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.

Court does not have the expertise to correct an administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible.

90.This Court must maintain judicial restraint and should not ordinarily encroach into the executive or legislative domain vide VISA Steel Ltd & Ors. vs. Union of India & Others in W.P (C ) No.20185-87/2005 decided on 8.12.2005, Rama Muthuramalingam, vs. Dy. Superientendent of Police, Mannargudi and Anr. AIR 2005 Madras I. etc.

91. Before parting with this case we would like to briefly comment on the subject of judicial restraint while reviewing statutes or administrative decisions. We feel justified in making these comments because the times which this country is passing through requires clarification of the role of the judiciary vis- -vis the executive and the legislature.

97.Judicial restraint is consistent with and complementary to the balance of power among the three independent branches of the State. It accomplishes this in two ways. First, judicial restraint not only recognizes the equality of the other two branches with the judiciary, it also fosters that equality by minimizing inter-branch interference by the judiciary. In this analysis, judicial restraint may also be called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary for the other co-equal branches. In contrast, judicial activism(tm)s unpredictable results make the judiciary a moving target and thus decreases the ability to maintain equality with the co-branches. Restraint stabilizes the judiciary so that it may better function in a system of inter-branch equality.