UMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, C. J.

( 1 ) THE most accepted methodology of a Governmental working is fairness in the event Governmental action lacks the element of fairness, it will be a plain exercise of judicial power to rise up to the occasion and grant relief to the persons seeking such a relief. Judicial redress ought not to be discarded but ought to be allowed if the merits of the matter so warrant. Public administrative actions are subject to judicial scrutiny, but that does not, however, mean and imply that every public action shall have to be set at naught by the Law Courts.

( 2 ) IT is now a well settled principle that law Courts while dealing withan administrative action must act as a Public Law Court having due regard to the needs of the Public Administration and the observation of Sir John donaldson in R. vs. Monopolies Commission ex parte Argyll Group1 lend support to such a statement of law. Sir John Donaldson was pleased to record that "good public administration is concerned with substance rather than form".

( 3 ) WHILE it is true that administrative law has developed in the developedcountries rather early, but the administrative law, as developed in this country does not, however, lag behind in any way. Justice Venkatachalaiah (as His lordship then was) in G. B. Mahajan vs. Jalgaon Municipal Council2 in no uncertain terms recorded that "the doctrine that powers must be exercised reasonably has to be reconciled with no less important doctrine that the Court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority which Parliament appointed to take the decision". The learned Judge went on to observe: "within the bounds of legal reasonableness is the area in which the deciding authority has genuinely free discretion. If it passes thosebounds, it acts ultra vires. The Court must therefore resist the temptation to draw the bounds too tightly, merely according to its own opinion. It must strive to apply an objective standard which leaves to the deciding authority the full range of choices which the legislature is presumed to have intended. Decisions which are extravagant or capricious cannot be legitimate. But if the decision is within the confines of reasonableness, it is no part of the Court s function to look further into its merits".

( 4 ) A duty is cast, as noted by Sir John Donaldson M. R. that publicadministration is concerned with substance rather than form and the Law court shall have to approach the problem with proper awareness of the needs of public administration.

( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob vs. Radhakrishnan was candid enoughto administer caution as to the limits of administrative jurisdiction of the courts. The Supreme Court observed: "7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals: These are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document