Module 1- Evolution of Admin Law

I. What is Admin Law? General principle of law governing governmental actions acting quasi-
judicial, executive or legislative functions and duties of public authorities.
When the administration goes beyond its powers and scope, it is regulated by the
administrative mechanism. It governs the rights, duties and powers of admin.
II. Development of admin law-
1. Laissez-faire state focused on self help and individualism. The state was not a facilitator.
Involved individuals only for tax and the state only provided a military to protect the
borders of the state from external invasion/threats (fns of a laissez-faire state). There was
no requirement for admin law in such a state.
2. Due to industrialisation, the state evolved into a welfare state, and the role of the govt
towards individuals changed. The character of the state is said to have changed.
3. Industrialisation led to urbanisation (due to migration). This frequent movement of people
led to a concentration of population which led to 2 main issues- law and order, necessity
for new facilities. This had to be solved by enacting new legislation/regulations and the
execution of these and adjudications that arose from these.
4. Duties of welfare state- role changed from a police state to that of a facilitator, protector,
provider, entrepreneur, economic controller, arbitrator/adjudicator.
5. Three organs est to provide these elements- legislature to make the law, executive to meet
the aims of the law, judiciary for adjudication.
6. This increase in the nature of the fns of the state, the legis and judiciary could not meet the
expectations of time and lacked technicality, expert knowledge- this led to inefficient
laws for the state. The state required a large number of technical laws. Therefore the legis
enacted a skeletal/general legislation and delegated further specific law making power to
the exec. Same with adjudication- regular courts were time consuming and too procedural.
Subsequently, became expensive and there was a monopoly on the dispute resolution
system. This led to a slow growth rate.
7. Quasi judicial functions help as they set up tribunals which have special/expert knowledge.
Knowledgeable and timely settlements can be given only by executive since the rigid
procedures of court are absent. Every admin authority may decide its own procedures
which increases efficiency of govt.
8. However, this concentration of power leads to arbitrariness, which led to a law to
organically emerge that we now know as admin law.
9. SUMMARY- increase in functions of govt -> legis.+ judicial functions -> element of
arbitrariness, unfairness, discrimination -> natural evolution of admin law.
III. Sources of Admin Law (Sure question-5 marks)
1. PRECEDENTS
i. control mechanism over admin law.
ii. Best example of this is when the SC created delegated legislation (Re: Delhi Laws Act,
1951)
iii. Re: Delhi Laws Act, 1951- Validity of delegated legislation was challenged. Question of
law was "through the executive, can laws be modified, amended, repealed, extended to
another territory or be adopted?" These questions arose because of a federal court decision
(he did not give the name) which placed the concept of delegated legislation under doubt.
Therefore, 3 specific questions were referred to the SC based on specific statutes. SC
created a law which justified the constitutionality of delegated legis. However, essential
legislative functions cannot be legislated.
iv. Another important example of the importance of precedents is Ridge v Baldwin, 1964,
which created the Principles of Natural Justice as applied in admin law. Prior to 1964,
principles of natural justice could only be applied if the administration was performing a
quasi-judicial function. This case held that even a purely administrative function (every
admin action) has to comply with PoNJ.
In India, in 1964 the case of Bapurao v State held that PoNJ are only applicable in
the event that quasi-judicial functions are being performed. However, in 1967, in the
case of State of Orissa v Dr. Binapani, a division bench of the SC changed this
position. It was held that admin actions having CIVIL CONSEQUENCES have to
comply with PoNJ, and not all admin actions, but not only quasi-judicial actions.
Civil consequences has been defined as "disputes" in admin actions.
In 1970, in the case of AK Kraipak v UoI, a constitutional bench held that PoNJ are
applicable in ALL admin actions.
v. Another important example is the status of official bias or "nemo judex in causa suo."
This was never considered as a disqualifying bias by English Courts. Indian courts have
held in Gullapalli Nageshwara Rao v APSRTC, 1958 that it is a disqualifying bias. Facts-
State Govt introduced a scheme whereby road transport services would be nationalised.
The petitioners, whowere plying their buses on various routes in the Krishna District
apprehending that their routes would be taken over by the newly established State
Corporation in implementation of the scheme, applied to the Court for the protection of
their fundamental rights to carry on their business. It was contended, inter alia, on their
behalf, (i) that Ch. They contented that the real object was to take over their business,
under cover of cancellation of permits, in contravention of Art. 31 of the Constitution, (2)
that the scheme itself was ultra vires the Act, for the reason, amongst others, that the
State Government whose duty it was to act judicially in approving the scheme, had
transgressed certain fundamental principles of natural justice.
 vi. One more example is the Wednesbury Principle. This is aka Wednesbury reasonableness
and stipulated that there must be reasonable exercise of discretion. Developed by the
House of Lords in Associated Provincial Pictures v Wednesbury Corp.
vii. Doctrine of Legitimate expectation and the doctrine of promissory estoppel- both created
by case laws.
Legitimate expectations was created by Lord Denning in Schdmitt v Secy, Home Affairs.
"If the expectation of a person is legitimate, this legitimate expectation gives right to make
a claim against them even if originally this right did not exist. In India, this doctrine was
expounded by Navjyoti Housing Society v Delhi Development Authority.
Promissory estoppel is the remedy if the government making a promise and subsequently
withdrawing from it. The govt is estopped from withdrawing and in cases regarding this,
the govt has to be a party. If based on a governmental promise, the person changes his
position and then the govt withdraws. The promise may be expressed or implied. It was
created in England in the 1750's but was codified in Robertson v Minister of Pensions.
Lord Denning delivered this judgement also. In India,, the leading case on this subject is
UoI v Anglo-Afghan Agencies.
2. CONSTITUTION AS A SOURCE
i. Read bare provisions of Articles 12, 14; 73, 62; 32, 226, 227, 136; 298, 299, 300; 323A,
323B (pl note these articles are paired together subject wise and separated by semi-colons.)
ii. Exercises control over instrumentalities of government which perform admin fns.
iii. Art 14- Fairness, non-discrimination, non-arbitrariness.
iv. Art 73, 162- Extent of exec powers of union and state. In Ram Jawaya Kapoor, SC
defines the extent of exec power as "exec power extends to areas where there is
legislative competence. This interpretation is pertinent to India as it does not necessitate
already existing laws for the exec to exercise power (like in Australia). It merely requires
legislative competence.
Australian position- exec power extends to places where there are already made
legislation.
Exec power may be defined as the residuary of powers after the legis and judiciary.
v. Art 32, 226, 227, 136- remedy against admin action.
vi. Art 298- Freedom of govt to carry on trade
vii. Art 299- Govt contracts
viii. Art 300- prov to make govt liable and sue the govt.
ix. Art 323A- est of admin tribunals
x. Art 323B- est of other tribunals.
 xi. Large number of article influence admin law and so consti is considered as a source. This
is to be seen in comparison with England where since there is no written Consti, or the US
which has strict separation of powers.
3. STATUES- VERY IMPORTANT IN ENGLISH LAW.
i. Major statues in England dealing with Admin law-
Rule Publication Act, 1983- regulates law making power of exec
Statutory Instruments Act, 1946- regulates rule making power of exec
Tribunals and Enquiries Act, 1958- regulates judicial fns
Crown Proceedings Act, 1947- regulates admin fns
ii. Rule Publication Act, 1983- When exec makes a law, it must be published. This Act
governs such publications and mandates it.
iii. Statutory Instruments Act, 1946- provides for how exec can make laws; how admin can
make laws and the procedures, manners and formalities of such making.
iv. Tribunals and Enquiries Act, 1958- when admin is performing a quasi-judicial fn, judicial
fn or conducting enquiry, the procedures to do so are prescribed in this Act.
v. Crown Proceedings Act, 1947- how exec fns are to be carried on and the restrictions
placed. Regulates the executive fns. Is a control mechanism for exec fns.
vi. Major Statutes in the USA dealing with Admin law-
Federal Admin Procedure Act, 1946- Conduct of admin proceedings. For example, this
Act specifies the way a notice must be served (S 5(a) of the Act prescribes that the notice
must be clear, specific, unambiguous, etc). Regulates conduct of admin proceedings by
executive.
Federal Tort Claims Act, 1946.
4. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
i. England- the important committees are:
Committee on Ministers Powers- Donoughmore Committee- dealt with delegated legis.
Frank's Committee- law relating to the conduct of enquiries and quasi-judicial fns.
ii. Based on Donoughmore Committee report, English legislature had a Committee on
Subordinate Legislation, which scrutinised the same.
iii. In India, there exists a Committee on Subordinate Legislation in the Lok Sabha, Rajya
Sabha and state legislative assemblies. It controls laws made by executive and scrutinises
exec made laws.
IV. Definitions of Admin Law
1. Robson-in his book Administrative Law of England- "Law relating to public
administration, like commercial law, law relating to commerce and land law, relating
to land." This def is not accepted by authors since commercial laws are codified by
statutes.
2. AV Dicey- in his book Law of Constitution- "Legal system that determines legal
status and liabilities of all state officials and also prescribes legal status and liabilities
of individuals in all their dealings with state officials. Prescribes rights, liabilities and
duties od admin in relation to individual rights, duties and liabilities and provides
remedies. It is a branch of the nation's legal system. Prescribes redress for disputes."
Dicey fails to recogonise that administration performs rule making and judicial
functions as well, and so this is considered as a restrictive definition, whereby
administrative law is restricted to admin functions and the determination of rights and
liabilities out of that.
3. Ivor Jennings- in his book Law and Constitution- "Administrative law is the law
relating to administration. It determines the organisation, powers, and duties of
administrative authorities." He does not differentiate between consti law and admin
law. All the aspects of his definition are covered by consti law and therefore implies
that admin law is not separate from consti law. However, this is untrue as consti does
not specifically allow things like delegated legislation and executive to perform
quasi-judicial functions. Therefore this def does not stand.
4. Griffit & Street- in their book Principles of Administrative Law-"Admin law is
concerned with 3 questions- 1)What sort of powers does the administration exercise?
2)what are the limits of these powers? 3) what are the ways in which the
administration is kept within these limits? The answers to these 3 questions constitute
Ithe def of admin law. Answers- 1) it performs administrative and other functions-
admin law governs administrative performing other functions apart from admin
functions. 2) Extent of the powers being prescribed such as whether exec can make
laws where the legislature has not enacted a law but has competence to do so. 3)
Checks on admin by way of Parliamentary and judicial controls. Who prescribes
these limits? There are various mechanisms through which limitations and controls
are made." This def is based on English law. When compared to Garner's definition,
this can be criticised on the grounds that the aspects of public incorporations etc are
not found in this def, and therefore is incomplete in the context of English law as
under English law, public corporations and local bodies need to be included as part of
the state in English law)
5. KC Davis- in his book Administrative Law Text-def is based on US admin law-
"Admin law is the law concerning powers and procedures of administrative agencies
including, especially, the law governing judicial review of administrative actions."
6. Wade and Phillip- in their book Constitutional Law (same def given by Wade in his
book on admin law)- "admin law is the law governing governmental power.
 7. Garner- in his book Administrative Law- "Administrative law may be described as
those rules which are recognised by courts as law and which relate to and regulate the
administration of the government."
V. Distinction between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law
1. Holland in his book Jurisprudence draws the distinction between consti and admin
law as follows- Consti is the law relating to the administration which is at rest while
admin law deals with them while they are in motion.
2. Consti provides for the duties, functions etc of admin bodies in a document, not in
action. When these provisions start having a functional dimension, that functional
aspect is governed by admin law.
3. This view was also taken by Maitland in his book Constitutional History of England.
According to him "Consti law deals with the structure and broader rules. Details are
left to admin law."
4. Hood & Phillips in their book Constitutional Law and Administrative Law agree with
Holland, and reiterate that consti deals with administration at rest, while
administrative law provides for it in motion.
5. Hart in his book Cases and Materials on Admin Law describes this distinction as: if
you draw wo circles, 1 of consti and another of admin, the consti circle is almost
completely separable from admin law and vice versa, but a part where admin law
cannot be separated from consti is called as water shed.
6. Examples of Watershed in Admin law under Indian law- Arts 12, 14, 32, 226, 227,
323A, 323B, 162, 73.
7. Essentially, all principles of admin law do not form a part of consti law.

The overlapping part is called as

Constitutional Administrative watershed in admin law.
Law Law

VI. Influence of Droit Administratif on Administrative Law

1. Council D'etat was formed in 1798 which is the basis of French admin law. Droit
Administratif is a modern day evolution of this. This was established by Napolean to
remove the arbitrariness of the highly centralised system that persisted during the
 time of Richely. This was established by incorporating A 52 into the French
Constitution.
2. Reason for incorporation of Council D'etat- to remove difficulties in the admin.
3. Later, this council developed into an advisory body to advise the govt. Then it
acquired adjudicatory powers, and finally it evolved into a court of appeal for
administrative disputes.
4. Changes to French Consti-
i. Art 12 was brought in to prohibit judicial control over admin.
ii. Art 16 to provide for separation of powers
iii. Art 21 to est droit administratiff.
5. Droit Admin included Council D'etat. Droit Administratif is a branch of law which
deals with the powers and duties of various admin agencies and officials. According
to Dicey, it determines position and liabilities of state officials, rights and liabilities of
private individuals in their dealings with official representatives of the state, and
procedure by which these rights and duties are enforced.
6. The 4 main principles behind Droit Admin are that releation between the govt and
its officials towards private citizens must be governed by a body of rules vastly
different from other laws. And that otdinary courts which determine disputes between
private individuals have no jurisdiction over disputes between individuals and the
state admin authorities, in case of a dispute in the jurisdiction of the courts, the
dispute will be adjudicated by the admin court, and Droit admin protects from normal
courts any servant of the state who is guilty but had done the act in bona fide
obedience to the orders of his superiors in the process of discharge of his duties.
7. Until this time, administrative disputes were being governed by civil courts, known
by the name of Azizee. These powers were taken away and given to Council D'etat.
This led to jurisdictional disputes. To decide these jurisdictional disputes, Tribunal
des Conflicts was established, which was headed by the Ministry of Justice and had
equal number of members from both bodies.
8. Council d'etat was the highest court of appeal and the jurisdiction was enlarged.
Below this are courts with original and appellate jurisdiction.
9. Apart from this, the court of cessation is the highest court in France. However, one
cannot appeal here from a decision of the council d'etat. They have completely
different admin courts, which is a system unique to France. Most legal systems
connect it at some point.
10. Thereafter, when the French Consti was restructured and renumbered, Art 65
provides for administrative courts.
11. Art 74 and 81 prescribes the current position.
 12. However, this system makes a judge judge his own cause. This criticism is given by
Dicey of the French system. These courts are considered as part of the admin, and the
admin is a party to the dispute. Eg- R Gandhi v Madras Bar Association, where
validity of the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) and National Company
Law Appellate Tribunal (‘NCLAT’) questioned. This can be said to go against the
independence of judiciary since govt appoints tribunals where cases against it will be
heard
13. The Council d'etat was given an advisory wing and a judicial wing to overcome this.
14. French admin law has a greater influence in certain constitutions such as the German
one (art 3) and Japanese (art 14).
15. Dicey did not support this system in France as he felt that he 2 court system would
protect govt officials from the consequences of their acts. According to him there was
no rule of law in France.
VII. Administrative law in other countries and their influence (Canada, Germany, France)

France Germany Canada

Highest court Highest court of appeal is the
has no role in Federal Court of Justice which SC of Canada
admin disputes. has 120 judges who are
specialised in 24 subjects. This
court is only for interpretation of provincial Federal courts
courts (only for the rest of
consti matters. Every subject has the matters.
questions of
a specialised court with 5 judges admin law)

What matters is specialised SC of Canada is the highest court of

judges, not special courts. There appeal even for admin matters.
are no administrative courts, but Below the SC, the hierarchy for
courts with jurisprudence over administrative courts for Federal and
administrative matters with provincial (state) disputes are different.
specialised judges.
Switzerland is the same as Canada, and
both are opposite to India and England.
Different from India since in India you
can approach the HC. In L Chandra
Kumar v UoI, the SC held by way of a
7 judge bench that one must approach
the HC before the SC for admin
 matters.

List of cases in this module-

Sources of admin law-
1. Re: Delhi Laws Act, 1951- SC- defined the scope of delegated legislation and
mandated that essential legislative functions may not be legislated.
2. Ridge v Baldwin, 1964- held that principles of natural justice must be applied to all
administrative actions, and not just quasi-judicial ones.
3. Bapurao v State, 1964- held that principles of NJ are only applicable to admin
actions which are quasi judicial in nature.
4. State of Orissa v Dr. Binapani, 1967 SC held that admin actions having CIVIL
CONSEQUENCES have to comply with PoNJ.
5. AK Kraipak v UoI, 1970 – held that principles of NJ must be applied in every admin
action.
6. Gullapalli Nageshwara Rao v APSRTC, 1958- official bias considered as a
disqualifying bias.
7. Associated Provincial Pictures v Wednesbury Corp, House of Lords developed the
Wedenesbury principle of reasonableness in admin action.
8. Schdmitt v Secy, Home Affairs. Lord Denning, created the doctrine of Legitimate
expectations.
9. Navjyoti Housing Society v Delhi Development Authority, Indian case law that
discussed doctrine of legitimate expectation.
10. Robertson v Minister of Pensions, Lord Denning – developed promissory estoppel.
11. UoI v Anglo-Afghan Agencies, Indian case wrt promissory estoppels.