Judicial Review Of Administrative Action

Question 1

1.

Answer 1

Procedure by which court looks into the VALIDITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE action taken by the executive. Important to note that court doesn’t sit as a court of appeal in this case .

Objective
1. Admin don’t abuse the power vested in him
2. The parties affected - just and fair treatment

Lord Diplock gave 5 grounds for judicial review. Though not exhaustive , apt base
1. Jurisdictional error
2. Procedural impropriety
3. Irrational ( wednesbury)
4. Lack of proportionality
5. Reasonable expectation

Question 2

1. Jurisdictional error

Answer 2

1. Lack of jurisdiction- min no power to revoke license, his revocation order held ultravires
2. Exceeded jurisdiction- local authority given power to run municipal bath and wash houses. But when they opened a public laundry
3. Abuse of power
4. Used power for a different purpose
5. Acted in bad faith ( colourable exercise of power)
6. Errror apparent on the face of record
7. Non consideration of relevant material

Question 3

3. Wednesbury test of unreasonableness

Answer 3

3 conditions
1. Took into consideration what ought NOT to have been taken
2. Didn’t take into consideration what should have been taken
3. Decision was so unreasonable that any reasonable authority would never consider imposing it

Question 4

3. Doctrine of legitimate Expectation ( DLE)

Answer 4

DLE can be used to review an administrative action when the decision of an authority deprived a person of a Benefit which was so far permitted to him by the authority and which he legitimately expected to continue until a rational reason for withdrawing the same would be communicated to him

GNCTD Delhi vs naresh Kumar
1. Not mere existence of legitimate expectation, but failure to give due consideration for the same will render a decision arbitrary

2. Reasonable expectation may arise when a) an express promise made by the admistrative authority b) acceptance by regular practice which a claimant can expect to continue c) such expectation may be reasonable
3. When authority proposes to defeat a persons legitimate expectation it should afford him an opportunity to make a representation in that regard
4. DLE permits to look into the decision of the authority which defeated LE is irrational and perverse which no reasonable person could have made

First found mentioned in the case of state of Kerala vs Madhavan Pillai - sanction to start an aided school. After 15 days direction to keep sanction in abeyance. Held that created legitimate expectation and second order violated the same .