JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner/Amanatullah Khan (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for judicial review to seek quashing of the ‘History Sheet’ opened apropos the petitioner and the purported proposal declaring him as ‘Bad Character’ and the entry of the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance ‘Register-X, Part-II, Bundle ‘A’ at P.S. Jamia Nagar, South-East and also for seeking directions to initiate legal/departmental action against the delinquent police officials for exercising powers under Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in a mala fide and perverse manner with material irregularities and impropriety.

2. In a social welfare State like India large number of administrative/local authorities are being created to carry out welfare activities and these authorities are vested with discretion. The discretion when coupled with word ‘Administrative’ reflects that choosing from various available alternatives but with reference to the rules of reasons and justice and not according to personal whims and exercise of discretion should not be arbitrary, vague or fanciful. The administrative discretion is latitude given to the governmental agencies to interpret and implement the public policies. The suitable control over exercise of discretion is necessary otherwise, administrative authority may abuse or misuse the conferred power and may convert in arbitrary body. The discretionary power conferred on an administrative authority is not absolute and must be exercised within the legal parameters.

2.1 The judicial review is a tool by which legality or lack of it can be examined in exercise of administrative discretionary power or any administrative action. The judicial review ensures that an individual is given fair treatment by the authority and is designed to prevent excess and abuse of power by any administrative authority and any probability of favouritism. Judicial review is a suitable tool within the powers of the judiciary to set aside any action taken by any public or administrative authority stated to be inconsistent or in conflict with law. It was held in the case of Chief Constable of North Wales Police V. Evans, (1982) 3 All ER 141 that the purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment. In Laker Airways Ltd. V. Department of Trade, (1977) 2 All E R 182, it was observed that discretionary power is to be exercised for the public good and this exercise can be examined by the Courts. Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions V. Minister for the Civil Service, (1984) 3 WLR 1174, observed that administrative action is subject to judicial review on the grounds which are “Illegality”, “Irrationality” and “Procedural Impropriety”.

2.2 In India, negation of arbitrariness in exercise of public power is considered a cardinal component of the Rule of Law. The Courts in India have invalidated arbitrary exercise of administrative power. Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The decision making process should be reasonable and rational and should not be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa V. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC 555 observed that Article 14 of the Constitution embodied a guarantee against arbitrariness. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 observed that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. The power of judicial review is considered to be an integral part of constitutional system and is described as basic and essential feature of the Con