ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

UNIT 2

VIBHUTI SHRIVASTAVA
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, PARUL INSTITUTE OF LAW
 CLASSIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

1. Legislative Functions- Rule making action or quasi-legislative action- Legislative

power which in administrative law parlance is known as Delegated Legislation.
2. Rule decision action or quasi- judicial action- Adjudicative power
3. Rule-application action or administrative action.
4. Ministerial action or pure administrative action- Administrative power which is non -
legislative and non-adjudicative power.
 LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS

Legislative functions of the executive consist of making rules, regulations, bye-laws, etc. It
is, no doubt, true that any attempt to draw a distinct line between legislative and
administrative functions is difficult in theory and impossible in practice. Though difficult, it
is necessary that the line must be drawn as different legal rights and consequences ensue.
As Schwartz said, “If a particular function is termed ‘legislative’ or ‘rule-making’ rather
than ‘judicial’ or ‘adjudication’, it may have substantial effects upon the parties concerned.
If the function is treated as legislative in nature, there is no right to a notice and hearing
unless a statute expressly requires them.
CONTINUED….

In the leading case of Bates v. Lord Hailsham, Megarry, J. observed that “the rules of
natural justice do not run in the sphere of legislation, primary or delegated.” Wade also
said, “There is no right to be heard before the making of legislation, whether primary or
delegated, unless it is provided by statute.”
Fixation of price, declaration of a place to be a market yard, imposition tax, establishment
of Municipal Corporation under the statutory provision, extension of limits of a town area
committee, etc. are held to be legislative functions.
CONTINUED….

Rulemaking action of the administration partakes all the characteristics which in normal
legislative action processes. Such characteristics maybe generality, prospectivity, and a
behaviour which basis action on policy consideration and gives a right or a disability. These
characteristics are not without exception.
 RULE DECISION ACTION OR QUASI- JUDICIAL ACTION- ADJUDICATIVE
POWER

Judicial Functions
According to the Committee on Ministers’ Powers, a pure judicial function presupposes an
existing dispute between two or more parties and it involves four requisites.
1. The presentation (not necessarily oral) of their case by the parties to the dispute;
2. If the dispute is a question of fact, the ascertainment of fact by means of evidence
adduced by the parties to the dispute and often with the assistance of argument by or on
behalf of the parties, on evidence;
CONTINUED….

3. If the dispute between them is a question of law, the submission of legal argument by
the parties; and
4. A decision which disposes of the whole matter by finding upon the facts in dispute and
‘an application of the law of the land to the facts found, including, where required, a ruling
upon any disputed question of law.’
Thus, these elements are present, the decision is a judicial decision even though it might
have been made by any authority other than a court, e.g. by Minister, Board, Executive
Authority, Administrative Officer or Administrative Tribunal.
CONTINUED….

The word ‘quasi’ means ‘not exactly.’ Generally, an authority is described as ‘quasijudicial’
when it has some of the attributes or trappings 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” e.g. if a
transaction is 45 described as a quasi-contract, it means that the transaction in question
has some but not all the attributes of a contract.
 RULE-APPLICATION ACTION OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Administer do action may be statutory, having the force of law or Non statutory, devoid of
such legal force. The bulk of the administrative action is statutory because a statute or the
constitution gives it illegal force, but in some cases, it may be non-statutory, such as issuing
directions to subordinates not having the force of law, but it’s violation may be visited with
disciplinary action. Though by and large administrative action is discretionary and is based
on subjective satisfaction, however, the administrative authority must act fairly, impartially
and reasonably.
 MINISTERIAL ACTION OR PURE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

In Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court observed, “It may not be possible to
frame an exhaustive definition of what executive function means and implies. Ordinarily
the executive power connotes the residue of governmental functions that remain after
legislative and judicial functions are taken away."
Thus, administrative functions are those functions which are neither legislative nor judicial
in character. Generally, the following ingredients are present in administrative functions:
CONTINUED….

1. An administrative order is generally based on governmental policy or expediency.

2. In administrative decisions, there is no legal obligation to adopt a judicial approach to the questions to
be decided, and the decisions are usually subjective rather than objective.
3. An administrative authority is not bound by the rules of evidence and procedure unless the relevant
statute specifically imposes such an obligation.
4. An administrative authority can take a decision in exercise of a statutory power or even in the absence of
a statutory provision, provided such decision or act does not contravene provision of any law.
5. Administrative functions may be delegated and sub-delegated unless there is a specific bar or prohibition
in the statute.
CONTINUED….

6. While taking a decision, an administrative authority may not only consider the evidence adduced by the
parties to the dispute, but may also use its discretion.
7. An administrative authority is not always bound by the principles of natural justice unless the statute
casts such duty on the authority, either expressly or by necessary implication or it is required to act
judicially or fairly.
8. An administrative order may be held to be invalid on the ground of unreasonableness.
9. An administrative action will not become a quasi-judicial action merely because it has to be performed
after forming an opinion as to the existence of any objective fact.
10. The prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition are not always available against administrative
actions.
 NEED FOR CLASSIFICATION

A question which arises for our consideration is whether the function performed by the
executive authorities are purely administrative, quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative in
character. The answer is indeed difficult, as there is no precise, perfect and scientific test to
distinguish these functions from one another. Administrative and quasi-judicial decisions
tend to merge in legislative activity and, conversely, legislative activity tends to fade into
and present an appearance of an administrative or quasi-judicial activity. A further
difficulty arises in a case in which a single proceeding may at times combine various
aspects of the three functions. The courts have not been able to formulate any definite test
for the purpose of making such classification.
CONTINUED….

Yet, such classification is essential and inevitable as many consequences flow from it, e.g. if the
executive authority exercises a judicial or quasi-judicial function, it must follow the principles of
natural justice and is amenable to a writ of certiorari or prohibition, but if it is a legislative or
quasi-legislative function, natural justice has no application. If the action of the executive
authority is legislative in character, the requirement of publication, laying on the table, etc.
should be complied with, but it is not necessary in the case of a pure administrative action.
Again, if the function is administrative, delegation is permissible, but if it is judicial, it cannot be
delegated. An exercise of legislative power may not be held invalid on the ground of
unreasonableness, but an administrative decision can be challenged as being unreasonable. It
is, therefore, necessary to determine what type of function the administrative authority
performs.
 DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS

A quasi-judicial function differs from a purely judicial function in the following respects :
1. A quasi-judicial authority has some of the trappings of a court, but not all of them;
nevertheless, there is an obligation to act judicially.
2. A lis inter parties is an essential characteristic of a judicial function, but this may not be
true of a quasi-judicial function.
3. A court is bound by the rules of evidence and procedure while a quasi-judicial authority
is not.
CONTINUED….

4. While a court is bound by precedents, a quasi-judicial authority is not.

5. 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.
The distinction between judicial and quasi-judicial functions rests mainly on the fact that in
deciding cases, courts apply pre-existing law whereas administrative authorities exercise
discretion. This is, however, fallacious. ‘The most that can be said is that the discretions of
the courts may differ in nature and extent from the discretions of the administrator.
Nevertheless, the asserted discretion is reduced to one of degree only.
THANKYOU