Grounds On Which Decision of Quasi-Judicial Authority Can

GROUNDS ON WHICH DECISION
OF QUASI-JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY CAN BE FLAGGED
BEFORE SUPREME COURT
Synopsis
◦ Introduction
◦ Meaning and definition
◦ Distinction between quasi-judicial and judicial function
◦ Supreme court interpretation on orders of quasi-judicial authority
◦ Conclusion
◦ Bibliography
Introduction
Powers conferred under a statute may be judicial, quasi-judicial or
executive. A judicial decision is made according to law. An
administrative decision is made according to administrative policy. A
judge attempts to find what is the correct solution according to the
legal rules and principles. An administrator attempts to find what is
the most expedient and desirable solution in the public interest.
Meaning and definition
The word “quasi” means “not exactly”. Generally, an authority is described as
“quasi-judicial” when it has some of the attributes of judicial functions, but not
all. In the words of the committee on Ministers’ powers, “the word ‘quasi’,
when prefixed to a legal term, generally means that the thing, which is described
by the word, has some of the legal attributes denoted and connoted by the legal
term, but that it has not all of them”, for example, if a transaction is described as
a quasi-contract, it means that the transaction in question has some but not all
the attributes of a contract.
Distinction between quasi-judicial and
judicial functions
◦ A quasi-judicial authority has some of the attributes of a court, but not all of them;
nevertheless there is an obligation to act judicially.
◦ A lis inter partes is an essential characteristics of a judicial function, but this may not be true
of a quasi-judicial function.
◦ A court is bound by the rules of evidence and procedure while a quasi-judicial authority is not.
◦ While a court is bound by precedents, a quasi-judicial authority is not.
◦ A court cannot be a judge in its own cause(except in contempt cases), while an administrative
authority vested with quasi-judicial powers may be a party to the controversy but can still
decide it.
Supreme Court interpretation on orders
of quasi-judicial authority
According to general rule no one can question the quasi-judicial authority but
there are some circumstances in which the orders of the quasi-judicial authority
can be questioned before Supreme court. It is a settled legal position that the
decision of the administrative tribunals are subject to judicial review of the
superior courts. However such power of judicial review cannot be applied in
each and every case. under some of the grounds, which may be call for review
by the superior courts. These are the exceptions to the general rule. There are
eight exceptions to the general rule as follows:
Exceptions to the general rule
1. Breach of provisions of the statute: the decisions of quasi-judicial
authority which breach the provisions of the statute can be
questioned before supreme court.
Rajnarain singh v. chairman, Patna Administration committee
Section 3(1)(f) of the impugned act empowered the Patna local
administration to select any provision of the Bengal municipality act
1884 and applied it to Patna with such modification and restriction as
it deemed fit. This provision was held to be unconstitutional as it
amounted to picking the policy of the act.
2. Directions affecting the individual rights: the directions of quasi-judicial
authority which are affecting the individual right can be questioned before
supreme court.
I.N. Saksena v. state of Madhya Pradesh
A civil servant was returned by administrative direction subsequently an
ordinance was issued by the governer on the dame term. It was held that the
retirement cannot be quashed.
3. Breach of contract: if the directions of quasi-judicial authority breach the
contract, those can be challenged before the supreme court.
4. Directions are issued in respect of the quasi-judicial functions: under this
ground also the quasi-judicial decision can be challenged before supreme court.
5. Directions are inconsistent with statute or rules: if the directions of
Quasi-judicial authority is inconsistent with the statute it can be
It can be questioned before supreme court.
Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India
A rule was framed by the Bar Council barring enrolment as advocates of persons
who had completed 45 years of age. The parent Act enabled the Bar Council to
lay down conditions subject to which an advocate ‘shall have right to practice.’
Declaring the rule ultra vires, the Supreme Court held that the Bar Council can
make the rule only after a person is enrolled as an advocate, i.e. at post-
enrolment stage. It cannot frame a rule that is barring persons from enrolment.
The rule was thus inconsistent with the parent Act.
6.Directions in respect of exercise of discretionary power
Anil Kumar Battacharya v. union of India
Telephone department issued an instruction to the effect that if the telephone
service, who were subscribers remains interrupted for period exceeding 15 days
sue to departmental reason, he is entitled to rewind in rent for that period.
Guwhati High Court held that this instruction is enforceable.
7. Where doctrine of estoppel is applicable
Union of India v. Indo Afghan Agencies, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 718 is the first notable
case in India which has heralded the installation of the doctrine of promissory
estoppel on the pedestal of law. It was once again declared in emphatic terms
that no person may be deprived of his right or liberty except in due course of an
course of
And by authority of law If a member of the executive seeks to deprive a citizen
of his right or liberty otherwise than in exercise of power derived from law,
common or statute, the Courts will be competent to and indeed would be bound
to protect the rights of the aggrieved citizen.
8. Directions are illogical, irrational, unfair or unjust: the decisions of quasi-
judicial authority which are based on above grounds can be challenged before
supreme court.
Daksheshwari cotton Mills v. Commissioner of Income tax
In this case defendant refuse to receive the relevant evidences produced by the
plaintiff without receiving the evidence defendant passed the final order against
the plaintiff. Supreme court held that order is invalid because there is a violation
of principle of fair hearing.
Conclusion
"the requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a
requirement of acting justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or
capriciously". The authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions
must record reasons in support of their orders. A quasi-judicial
decision involves certain procedural attributes like natural justice. In
recent years the concept of quasi-judicial power has been undergoing
a radical change.
Bibliography
◦ C. K. Takwani, “lectures on administrative law”, EBC publication,
seventh edition, 2022.
◦ I.P. Massey, “Administrative law”, EBC publication, ninth edition,
2021.

Grounds On Which Decision of Quasi-Judicial Authority Can

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grounds On Which Decision of Quasi-Judicial Authority Can

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grounds On Which Decision of Quasi-Judicial Authority Can

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GROUNDS ON WHICH DECISION

You might also like