CLASSIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Administrative action - Comprehensive term

Cuts across the traditional classification of powers

4 categories

Rule-making action / Quasi-legislative

American constitution expressly confers to legislature - Implied under Indian

Constitution

Impossible to provide quality & quantity of laws

Rule-making action partakes all characteristics of legislative action

State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh (2002) 2 SCC 7

Declaration determining the territorial area of a Gram Sabha & thereafter

establishing the Gram Sabha - Is it quasi-legislative?

* Where the provisions of statute provide for legislative activity

* Where the power exercised does not concern an interest of the individual or
relate to particular situation but relates to public in general

* Where it lays down future course of action

Rules of N.J. do not apply except reasonableness & fair play

Rule decision action / Quasi-judicial

More decisions from administrative agencies

Power to perform acts administrative in character, but incidentally requires some

judicial traditions - Disciplinary proceedings, cancellation, suspension or refusal to
renew license

Donoughmore Committee on Ministers Powers (1932) - True judicial decision -

Presupposes a lis between 2 or more parties + 4 requisites

Pure administrative action - No legal obligation to consider & weigh submissions &
arguments - Grounds of action & procedure are left to the discretion

Approach seems to be fallacious - Judges not only apply law - They consider policy,
socio-economic & political factors, expediency & also exercise discretion -

21
Administrative authorities may apply law & dispose of the case - Ex: Tax
Quasi-judicial need not follow strict procedure
I. P. Massey - The distinction between quasi-judicial & administrative action is
very thin - Where the law requires enquiry before decision
Rule-application action / Administrative action
Though the distinction is narrow - Relevant in determining the measure of N.J.
Neither legislative nor judicial
Ex: S. 10 & 11A of I D Act - Power to make reference to tribunals, Fact finding
action, Issuing directions to subordinate authorities etc
Devoid of generality - No procedural obligations - Minimum N.J.
Does not decide a right - May affect a right
Ministerial action
Action as a matter of duty - Devoid of discretion or judgment - Ex: Collection of
revenue, Annual report etc

Area of action - Very limited

ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS

Flow from the general executive power - Due to unprecedented increase in govt.
functions

Superior administrative authority to subordinate authority - Efficacious technique

for achieving some uniformity & also to manipulate in a new & dynamic area

Flexibility - Devoid of technicality

Specific or general - Directory or mandatory

Whether such instructions are enforceable? - Difficult question

Instructions generally issued without statutory authority - Directory

Fernandez v. State of Mysore AIR 1967 SC 1753

Tenders submitted to Chief Engineer P.W.D. - Petitioners was the lowest among
unconditional - 3rd respondents was the lowest conditional - Letter to 3rd
respondent to withdraw conditions & others to reduce amount - 3 rd respondent
withdrew after stipulated time

Petitioner wrote to C.E. that his tender being lowest should have been accepted -
Refused to reduce the amount

22
Challenged the acceptance of 3rd Respondents tender

Rules of Mysore P.W.D. Code were not followed

Violation of A. 14 - Acceptance beyond the period & favoured the 3rd respondent

Held: No authority to issue rules in matters with which the code was concerned -
Administrative instruction - Appellant had no right to apply to court

No discrimination

Though cannot be enforced, disciplinary action can be taken against the officer
concerned

Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1978) 2 SCC 196

Punjab civil service & allied services examination - 3 rd rank among S.C. - Only 2
vacancies - First 2 got the appointment letter - One selected for IAS - Appellant
applied based on 1961 Circular

Claim rejected - To be included in the normal pool of vacancies - H.C. dismissed

the suit - Fresh competitive exam

S.C. - Resultant vacancy should go to appellant - Govt. instruction clearly stipulate

that the vacancy resulting from the termination of services of SC / ST should not be
included in normal pool - Must be filled on ad hoc basis from the candidates
belonging to that category

Administrative instructions, not contrary to statutory rules - Binding

V. T. Khanzode v. Reserve Bank of India AIR 1982 SC 917

Grouping of employees - Promotion within the group - Change in the group -

Affected seniority

Whether the staff regulations issued by RBI fixing the basis of seniority of its
employees could be modified by a circular issued by it later on?

Administrative instructions cannot modify the statutory rules - Staff regulations

were not issued under S. 58 of RBI Act, 1934 - Not rules - Could be amended

Amitabh Shrivastava v. State of M.P. AIR 1982 SC 827

Rule 7 of Rules Relating to Admissions to Medical Colleges in M.P., 1979 -

23
Reservation - 21 seats to sons/daughters of military personnel

Rule 20 - Qualifying marks 50% - Board can lower by 5% if seats are not filled

Rule 9 - Further vacancy - Combined merit list of all candidates on waiting list

Appellant - Son of a military personnel - 43.6%

Marks lowered to 45% - 7 seats were still vacant in the military personnel category

1980 executive order - Minimum aggregate reduced to 43% - Board applied Rule 9
& prepared a combined list - Appellant was refused admission

Whether the selection should be based on the combined list under Rule 9 or taking
43% as qualifying marks?

Held: Minimum qualifying marks was reduced by executive order - Rule 9 is not
applicable - Appellant should be admitted (contradictory to what is said in the case
before)

C. L. Verma v. State of M.P. AIR 1990 SC 463

M.P. State Municipal Service (Executive) Rules, 1973 - 58 years as superannuating

age - Govt. notification stated last day of the month during which the employee is
going to be superannuated

Held ultra vires - Administrative instruction cannot compete with the statutory rule

Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. (1982) 1 SCC 39

The U.P. Foodgrains Dealers (Licensing & Restriction of Hoarding) Order, 1976
(Under E.C.A.) - Licensing of trade in food grains

The U.P. Foodgrains (Procurement & Regulation of Trade) Order, 1978 -

Permitted stock quantity & search and seizure

No restriction on intra-state & inter-state movement of food grains - Teleprinter

message by the Secretary to the govt. to regional food controllers prohibited inter-
district movement - Wheat Seized

Conflict between the administrative instruction & A. 19(1)(g) - Neither the Act nor
the orders impose restrictions

Administrative instruction in the absence of any statutory authority has no force

of law

But if they are consistently followed for a long time, govt. cannot depart from

24
 them at its sweet will without rational justification (A. 14)

By administrative instruction govt. has power to fill up gaps in the rules if the
rules are silent

If administrative instruction is not referable to any statutory authority, it cannot

have the effect of taking away the rights vested in person governed by the Act

25