Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"This gap should be filled by an authority which is able to act more speedily, informally and with a greater regard to the individual justice of a case than is possible by ordinary legal process of the Courts, it should not be regarded as a substitute for, or rival to, the legislature or to the Courts but as a necessary supplement to their work, using weapons of persuasion, recommendation and publicity rather than compulsion".

The fight between an individual citizen and the State is unequal in nature. Therefore, the very existence of such an institution will act as a check and will be helpful in checking the canker of corruption and maladministration. More so when it has been repeatedly asserted that the canker of corruption, in the proportions it is said to have attained, may well dig into the vitals of our democratic State, and eventually destroy it (See Corruption - Control of Maladministration by John B. Monteiro).

14. In this context, reference could usefully be made to the following observations of Lord Denning in Regina v. Local Commissioner for Administration for the North and East Area of England, Ex parte Bradford Metropolitan City Council,(1979) 1 Q.B. 287 :--

"In the nature of things a complainant only knows or feels that he has suffered injustice. He cannot know what was the cause of the injustice. It may have been due to an erroneous decision on the merits or it may have been due to maladministration somewhere along the line leading to decision. If the commissioner looking at the case - with all his experience -can say : 'It looks to me as if there was maladministration somewhere along the line - and not merely an erroneous decision'-then he is entitled to investigate it. It would be putting too heavy a burden on the complainant to make him specify the maladministration : since he has no knowledge of what took place behind the closed doors of the administrators' offices.
I confess that there is a difficulty about applying this approach to a Local Commissioner - because of section 26(2) (a), which I have just quoted, which says that the complainant must specify "the action alleged to constitute maladministration........" But I cannot help thinking that these few words are misleading if taken by themselves. In order to give sense to the provision, I think that the word 'action' there refers to the same "action" as is mentioned earlier in section 26(1). Expanded fully, section 26(2)(a) should read "specifying the action taken by or on behalf of the authority in connection with which the complainant complains there was maladministration". I realise that this means departing from the literal words: but I would justify it on the ground that it will "promote the general legislative purpose" underlying the provision : see Nothman v. Barnet London Borough Council (1978) 1 WLR 220,228. It cannot have been intended by Parliament that a complainant (who of necessity cannot know what took place in the council offices should have to specify any particular piece of maladministration. Suffice it that he specifies the action of the local authority in connection with which he complains there was maladministration."
(d) 'grievance' means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration
(g) 'maladministration' means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case-
(i) where such action or the administrative procedure or practice governing such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory, or
(ii) where there has been negligence or undue delay in taking such action, or the administrative procedure or practice governing such action involves undue delay."