TyroCity: Administrative Law Notes

Quasi Judicial Bodies

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

a. Administrative Court
The Administrative Court in Nepal hears appeals related to removal of government employee only.

It decides on appeals related to removal of gov employee only, does not hear all disputes concerning government employee, such as those related to promotion, deployment, departmental action, corruption, etc.

No relation to cases regarding ordinary citizens.

In this sense, Administrative Court in Nepal does not really reduce the burden of cases on the regular courts.

Public Service Act, 2049 is the special governing Act

Constitution and Qualification of members– 1 chairperson and 2 members’ panel. Tenure of member is 5 years. Chairperson is person who was, is or qualified to be judge of appellate court. Other 2 members, 1 is from legal and another from administrative background.
Jurisdiction– Hear appeal against departmental action to remove gov employee from service, with or without restriction on future government employment.
Exercise of jdx– Collectively by the 3 members based on majority opinion.
Decision on Appeal– to endorse or invalidate the earlier decision, or decrease punishment or to acquit, within 6 months from date of filing of appeal
Parties may appoint lawyer or plead themselves
Enforcement of decision- via Ministry of Public Administration
Contempt of court- proceedings may be held against those who do not comply with this Court’s decisions or orders or one who commit contempt of this court. Up to 6 months imprisonment or not exceeding Rs. 5,000 fine or both for contempt.

Ujjwal P. Devkota v. Office of Audit Controller (NKP 2057)

Appeals relating to termination of government employment should be filed with the Administrative Court, which is the prescribed legal remedy, and not as a writ application under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Administrative Courts is an alternate legal remedy.

This decision put an end to the practice, after the enforcement of Constitution of 1990, of directly filing writs by employees against whom departmental action had been taken , instead of filing appeal at Admin Court.

b. Revenue Tribunal

Hears appeals against decisions related to revenue taken by various agencies and official pursuant to Revenue Tribunal Act, 2031

Constitution and Qualification of members– 1 chairperson and 2 members’ panel. Chairperson is person who is or qualified to be judge of appellate court. Other 2 members, 1 is from revenue and another from audit background.
Jurisdiction– Initial complaint: relating to its contempt (of court).

Appeal: Hears appeals against decisions related to revenue taken by various agencies and official

Appeal against Decision of Revenue Tribunal- Decision of RT is final. May file appeal against decision of RT at the Supreme Court on the following legal grounds:

(i) question of jurisdiction

(ii) admission of irrelevant evidence and exclusion of relevant evidence, or

(iii) violation of mandatory procedural laws.

. . .

c. District Administrative Office . . .
d. Local Authorities
e. Others (Forest, Land, Police, etc.)

Role of CIAA as an Ombudsman in Nepal

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Introduction to the Ombudsmen

The origin of the word is found in Old Norse umbuðsmann (accusative) and the word umbuds man, meaning representative (with the word umbud/ombud meaning proxy, that is someone who is authorized to act for someone else, a meaning it still has in the Scandinavian languages).[1]

The modern use of the term began in Sweden, with the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman instituted by the Instrument of Government of 1809, to safeguard the rights of citizens by establishing a supervisory agency independent of the executive branch.[2]It is a unique institution which leads to an ‘open government’ by providing a democratic control mechanism over the powers of the State.[3]Ombudsman acts as an external agency, outside the administrative hierarchy, to probe into administrative faults. [4]

The Commonwealth Ombudsman in Australia was established in 1976. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about the actions and decisions of Australian Government departments and agencies, the services delivered by most private contractors for the Australian Government, and oversee complaint investigations conducted by the Australian Federal Police.[5] In Brazil the office of Ombudsman is called the Ouvidor, usually heading a service called Ouvidoria, and each government agency defines its own service. These organizations usually lack full independence.[6] The Ombudsman’s Office of Colombia (Spanish: Defensoría del Pueblo, or People’s Defender) is the national agency in charge of overseeing the protection of civil and human rights within the legal framework of the state.[7] The European Ombudsman was established by the Maastricht treaty.[8] The European Union Ombudsman investigates claims by companies which reside or have their interests within the European Union against incidents of bad administration by bodies or institutions of the European Union.[9] In India, Ombudsman is called as Lokpal or Lokayukta.[10] The Russian ombudsman position is called Commissioner for Human Rights.[11] From a survey of the working of the Ombudsman systems in New Zealand, England and Australia, one thing stands out, viz., the purpose of the Ombudsman is to control the administration and thus give protection to the citizen against injustice brought about by faulty administration.[12]

Ombudsman also helps in gradually improving administrative procedures by making recommendations for modifying these procedures.[13]
Ombudsman provides a valuable method of investigating complaints against government departments.[14]
Ombudsman assists an individual to secure an appropriate remedy by the department. The remedy make take several forms, e.g, apology, fresh decision, payment of ex gratia compensation; any other financial benefit (as for e.g, waiver of arrears of tax, payment of interest or refunding of expenses), departmental review of his case and similar other cases, review of relevant departmental policy, or review of delegated legislation contributing to injustice to the citizen.[15]
On the whole, Ombudsman seeks to hold the balance between the citizen and the state and thus he contributes to the greater efficiency and humanity of the administrative process.[16]

Garner rightly states that he is ‘an officer of the Parliament, having his primary function, the duty of acting as an agent for Parliament, for the purpose of safeguarding citizens against abuse or misuse of administrative power by the executive.[17]

According to Prof.S.K.Agrawal, the term ‘Ombudsman’ refers only to institutions which have three basic and unique characteristics[18]:

Ombudsman is an independent and non-partisan officer of the legislature who supervises the administration.
He deals with the specific complaints from the public against administrative and mal-administration.
He has the power to investigate, criticize and report back to the legislature, but not to reverse administrative action.

He is appointed by the Parliament and thus, he is not an officer in the administrative hierarchy. He is above the party politics and is in a position to think and decide objectively.[19]

The basic idea of an ombudsman (a ‘grievance person’) can be stated simply: a complaint of administration from a relevant source is investigated by an official with appropriate powers, clearly independent of the administrative authorities.[20]

The ombudsman follows an administrative, inquisitorial and private process of investigation, with full access to departmental files, full power to question civil servants and the right to expect the co-operation of the department being investigated.[21]

Introduction to CIAA

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), Nepal is an apex constitutional body to curb corruption and its tentacles in the country.[22] Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority Act was enacted in 1991. A regulation thereof was also promulgated to lay down the procedural details for implementing the provisions of act. The above Act and Regulation define in detail the scope, functions and procedures of investigation and prosecution.[23]

CIAA is the distinctive anti-corruption agency in South Asia, which plays the role of an ombudsman, investigator and prosecutor as well.[24] It aims to crack down the corruption issues at a national level with system-based approach.[25] It also focuses on detection and punishment of corrupt acts on the one hand and social, cultural and institutional reform on the other.[26]

There shall be a commission for the investigation of abuse of authority in Nepal consisting of a chief commissioner and as many other commissioners as required. If additional commissioner is appointed apart from the chief commissioner, the chief commissioner shall act as chairperson of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority.[27] The president shall on the recommendation of the constitutional council, appoint the chief commission and other commissioners.[28] The tenure of chief commissioner and other commissioners is six years from the date of appointment.

Thus, CIAA is a Constitutional body made for the prevention of Corruption.

Role of CIAA as an Ombudsman in Nepal

There is no equivalent of an ombudsman in Nepal. However, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) serves as a forum for complaints by the citizens against government employees and entities.[29] Nepal does not have an ombudsman per se, but the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) covers the same functions as an ombudsman as it mediates citizens’ complaints against government employees and entities.[30] No existing laws or regulations in Nepal clearly define the role of the CIAA or the NVC as an ombudsman.[31]

The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) is a top Constitutional Body, which serves as the watchdog against vice, such as the abuse of authority and the resultant chain of corruption which exists in the country.[32]

The CIAA is considered as the Ombudsman in Nepal because of the following reasons as referred to from the definitions dealt above:

Investigative and Prosecutive Role

It conducts inquiries and investigations into corruption and improper conduct as defined by the law, allegedly committed by persons holding public positions. It has authority to investigate all officials holding public positions, from the Prime Minister to low-ranked public servants. However, it has no jurisdiction over any official in relation to whom the constitution itself separately provides for such action and any official to be prosecuted under the Army Act. Based on the findings, the Commission may file a case against the persons, alleged to have committed corruption, in the court of law. A special court has now been established to look into such cases.[33]

Corrective and Recommendatory Role

If investigation leads to a finding of an “improper act”, the Commission may admonish, recommend departmental actions (in the case of Judges and chiefs and members of constitutional bodies) or ask for recovery of the loss inflicted by such an act. The Commission may make suggestions or recommendations to the government for amending laws or making certain improvements in the functions and procedures of the government, or part thereof, with a view to enhancing and improving good governance practices in the country.[34]

Preventive Role

The law provides for the CIAA to undertake appropriate awareness, information dissemination and sensitization programmes to prevent officials of the government and the public at large from indulging in corrupt practices.[35]

The commission received 4,149 complaints in the fiscal year 2008-2009. Out of these complaints, it settled 3,303 cases and filed 47 cases in the Special Court after it conducted the necessary investigations.[36]

Some cases relating to effectiveness of CIAA:

Mr. Badri Bahadur Karki v CIAA[37]

Sunil maske has been trying to export the Indian money. And he was under the prosecute and he was acquitted by the court with return that money. CIAA initiates to appointed a investigator officer. He asked clarification with setting some legal question to attorney general about the acquittal of Sunil Maske.

Petitioner contention: as being an attorney General, decision made on the basis of Article 110(2) is valid. CIAA does not have authority to inquiry and find out right or wrong upon the decision. The action of CIAA is out of jurisdiction and illegal.

Defendant submission: On the basis of the article 98 of the constitution kingdom of Nepal, Attorney general does not have the immunity to be inquiry from CIAA. Article 98(3) provides to prosecute or not prosecute in regard of abuse of authority or corruption to CIAA. Article 98(3) is not narrowed by Article 110(2), they have equal status. There is no clear constitutional provision to be out of the jurisdiction to attorney general. CIAA has authority to ask clarification to Attorney General. Sunil Maske has been arrest with illegal money and he was acquitted with return that money. In this regard to ask for clarification is the due process of CIAA. In this situation the writ was not necessary to file by Attorney General.

Verdict of the court: Abuse of authority doing by unreasonable act or corruption by Attorney General, in this regard CIAA have right to investigate upon it. CIAA does not have right to do investigate upon the decision given by the Attorney General is not acceptable statement. Petition should be given the answer of the question set out by CIAA. No existing situation to file writ so it is declared void.

Laya Prashad Khatri v CIAA[38]

In this case the person who is second class officer made the forged and fabricated certificate of M.A. passed in political science from C.N. Mithila University for the purpose of promotion. CIAA after the investigation found that the certificate presented to Public Service Commission is forged. Then CIAA filed the case being base on the provision of ‘Corruption Prevention Act 2017’ sec.7 (1) and sec (12).

The Supreme Court held that the document shows that certificate is forged. So the demand of CIAA and punishment (decision) of special court is (seems) lawful and reasonable.

[1] Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman, accessed on 3rd April, 2011

[2] Ibid

[3] Supranote 1

[4] M.P. Jain and S. N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law, 4th Ed, Wadhwa and Company Law Publishers, Agra, India, p 917

[5] Supranote 3

[6] Supranote 3

[7] Supranote 3

[8] Supranote 3

[9] Supranote 3

[10] Supranote 3

[11] Supranote 3

[12] Supranote 6, p 918

[13] Supranote 6, p 918

[14] Supranote 6, p 918

[15] Supranote 6, p 918

[16] Supranote 6, 918

[17] J.J.R.Upadhaya, Administrative Law, Central Law Agency, Allahbad, 2001, p 366

[18] Ibid, p 366

[19] Id, p 366

[20] Peter Leyland and Terry Woods, Textbook on Administrative Law, Oxford University Press, 4th Ed, p 141

[21] Beatson, Matthews and Elliot’s, Administrative Law Text and Materials, Oxford University Press, 3rd Ed, p 719

[22] Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), Nepal, An INTRODUCTION available at http://www.ciaa.gov.np/nepali/jhola/CIAA_Brochure_Final.pdf, accessed on 2nd April, 2011

[23] Available at http://www.ciaa.gov.np/funcfeat.htm, accessed on 5th April, 2011

[24] Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), Nepal, An INTRODUCTION available at http://www.ciaa.gov.np/nepali/jhola/CIAA_Brochure_Final.pdf, accessed on 6th April, 2011

[25] Ibid

[26] id

[27] The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063, Article 119(1)

[28] The Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2063, Article 119(2)

[29] Available at http://baseswiki.org/en/Nepal, accessed on 8th April, 2011

[30] Global Integrity Report, 2009, available at http://report.globalintegrity.org/Nepal/2009/scorecard/69/56h, accessed on 9th April, 2011

[31] ibid

[32] Available at http://www.icac.org.hk/newsl/issue19eng/button4.htm, accessed on 1st April, 2011

[33] ibid

[34] id

[35] id

[36] Supranote 32

[37] NKP 2058, 239

Administrative Law

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Introduction

Development of Administrative Law

Classification of Administrative Power / Action

Delegated Legislation

Control of Delegated Legislation

Reasons and Type of Control

Administrative Discretion

Administrative Adjudication

Quasi Judicial Bodies

Quasi Judicial Bodies

Principles of Natural Justice

Ombudsman

Role of CIAA as an Ombudsman in Nepal

Public Undertaking

Public undertaking

Supreme Court's Role in Development of Administrative Law in Nepal

Rule of law/ Droit Administrative

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Droit administratif, or “administrative law,” has been defined by French authorities in general terms as “the body of rules which regulate the relations “of the administration or of the administrative “authority towards private citizens”; and Aucoc in his work on droit administratif describes his topic in this very general language:[1] “Administrative law “determines (1) the constitution and the relations of “those organs of society which are charged with the “care of those social interests which “are the object of public administration, by which “term is meant the different representatives of society “among which the State is the most important, and “(2) the relation of the administrative authorities “towards the citizens of the State.”

It was once all but complete; it is now far less extensive than it was thirty-six years ago. It forms only one portion of the whole system of Droit administratif. It has been imitated in most of the countries of continental Europe. For Droit administratif has, of recent years, been so developed as to meet the requirements of a modern and a democratic society, and thus throws light upon one stage at least in the growth of English constitutional law. It is, however, this very contrast between administrative law as it exists in France, and still more as it existed during by far the greater equality before the law of the land which are firmly established in modern England, that mainly makes it worth while to study, not of course the details, but what de Tocqueville calls the notions generales of French droit administratif.

The prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition are available against the decisions of administrative tribunals.

Council d’Etat:

This was formed for the judicial and administrative works. This also gives suggestions or opinions to the government in the general administrative matters. In the Council d’Etat there are four types of judicial officials- a president, vice presidents in required number, presidents of different departments and auditeurs. There are five departments in the Council d’Etat , There is the Department of Finance, Department of General Construction, Social Department, Home Department and Department of Justice. The heads of these departments are called as presidents. The main head of the Council d’Etat is the prime minister of France, in his absence, the Minister of Justice acts as the president. In practice, the vice president does most of the works of the president.[1] The auditeurs are also of two types-‘Master of Petitions’ and ‘Councilor of State’ The council has been given very wide powers over the administrative tribunal. The council goes into the merits of questions of law as well as fact. The council also entertains on application in recession to test the legality and propriety of the decisions of the tribunal and the council may take up the error or law apparent on the face of the record, even in case of revision..

With regard to statutes, it is formally provided that all bills introduced into parliament by the government must have been submitted for the Counseil’s advice. The parliament may or may not accept it. In principle, it can present to parliament a new bill containing provisions which conform neither to its original bill nor to the modifications suggested by the Counseil d’Etat; for, although this appears to frustrate the requirement of consultation, parliament must retain complete freedom to adopt whatever text it pleases.[2]

Quite apart from the legislative process, the Counseil d’Etat has the duty of acting as general legal adviser to the government and to individual ministers.

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF DROIT ADMINISTRATIF:

The power of administration to act ‘suo motu’ and to impose directly on the subject the duty to obey its decision.
The power of administration to take decisions and to execute them ‘suo motu’ may be exercised only within the scope of the law which protects individual liberties against administrative arbitrariness.
The existence of a specialized administrative jurisdiction. One speaks of administrative jurisdiction because there decision relate to the superior control of the counseil d’Etat either by means of appeal.

This is principle laid down by the counseil d’Etat, that from administrative decisions. There is a right of appeal to the counseil even where the law is silent or if it provides. That the tribunals are the final authority.

One good result of this is that an independent body reviews every administrative action. The counseil d’Etat composed of eminent civil servant deals with a variety of matters like claim for damages for wrongful acts of government servants, income tax, pensions disputed elections, personal claims of civil servants against the state for wrongful dismissal or suspension and so on.[1]

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE ENGLISH RULE OF LAW AND DROIT ADMINISTRATIF OF FRANCE:

The Droit administratif of France resembles (have a similarity to) the English rule of law, because both are the result of ‘Case law’ or judge made law.
The counseil d’Etat of France has been converted from an executive into a judicial or quasi-judicial body by the gradual (not rapid) process of its judicial from and its executive function. In England, the judicial system has grown as a result of transfer to parts of the King’s council of judicial powers originally exercised by the ‘King-in-council. However, the parliament destroyed the arbitrary authority of courts like the Star Chamber and of the council. In France, Droit administratif and administrative tribunals were not only tolerated (sustain) but progressively thrived (prosper) and have come to stay.
In England, the crown and its servants was something beyond and above the ordinary law. Such a concept of administration thrived in France.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ENGLISH RULE OF LAW AND DROIT ADMINISTRATION

The following points of differences have been mentioned[1]:

Droit administratif is not the law of a class and it is a distinct body of law which may affect and does affect the rights of French citizen. In England, there are laws, customs or regulations which determine the positions of civil servants of the Head of the State. These laws, customs and regulations constitute the law of a class. The powers exercisable by the civil servants under these laws, customs and regulations must be exercised in accordance with ordinary common law principle.
If an official in England exceeds (be more) the authority given to him, he incurs (suffer) the common law responsibility for his wrongful act and he can not plead in his defense strict obedience to official orders and he becomes amenable (responsible to law) to the authority of ordinary courts for the tort he has committed. But in France the government and its servant exercise wide discretionary powers which is not under the control of any court. The executive or its servant can not be made amenable to the jurisdiction of any tribunal for an act of the state.

REASONS OF SUCCESS TO DROIT ADMINISTRATIF:
Droit administratif has been quite successful in subjecting the rule of law. This success may be attributed to a combination of the following factors:

The composition and functions of the Droit administratif itself.
The flexibility of its ‘case law’.
The simplicity of the remedies available before the administrative courts.
The special procedure evaluated (natural process) by those courts.
The character of the substantive law which they apply.

Analysis of Nepalese situation with reference to Droit administratif:

There is no clear constitutional provision about the administrative tribunal in Nepal. There is operating a revenue tribunal and some special tribunal make-up timely. There is one administrative court established by civil service Act, 2049 (and regulation 2050) section 75. It has not effectiveness. Its name and function is contradiable with other countries.[1] Rules, regulations, bylaws, schemes, orders, notification, directions and circulars are main forms of delegated legislation which makes the effectiveness to the administrative function.

So far the province of administrative law is concerned, it embraces the existence of various administrative bodies such as wage board, central board of revenue, commission of inquiry and advisory boards, tariff commission and also there are administrative tribunals for the judicial function. Provisions of adjudicatory authority, (e.g. decisions of the administrative authorities or tribunals i.e. regional administrator, C.D.O., D.D.C., V.D.C., ministerial, departmental decisions etc. It gives the social justice and to fulfill the administrative purposes. The informal sources of administrative law in Nepal are:- Public Service Commission procedure Act, direction, rule, Karbhai Bandej Act, 2009, Nepal Corruption elimination Act, 2010, Nepal Civil Service Act, 2013 and rule 2021, Administrative reform commission report, Citizen Right Act, 2012, Muluki Ain, 2020, Administrative function reform karya toli, 2056 etc.

Historically, the executive was identified with sovereign, in whose name many acts were performed by the prime minister, cabinet, and other ministers. But the executive today includes all those officials, public authorities and other agencies by which functions of government are performed within the executive are therefore to be included the civil service, the armed forces, the police, local authorities(who exercise executive functions within a defined locality) and independent statutory bodies (e.g. DDC, VDC, ward office etc.). The budget is framed by the executive and after being finally approved by the legislature the executive at different levels spends vast sum of money and all revenues are also collected by the executive at lower levels.

In France, the counseil d’Etat is the supreme authority to correct the decisions of various administrative authorities. This council functions for all practical purposes like a judicial body the proceedings are conducted in public and the parties many represent themselves through counsels. The council give comprehensive judgments and these constitutes valuable precedents for the future.

Administrative law governing the conduct, powers and procedures of administrative agencies. It is control mechanism of the public administration. It deals in particular with the quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers of administrative authorities along with their executive powers and their control. There is greater emphasis upon the study of judicial exercise of their diversified powers. For e.g. Administration procedure (regulation) Act, 2028, Corruption elimination Act, 2017, Authority abuse investigation, commission Act, 2048, Civil Service Act, 2049 and regulation 2050, Public Service Commission (procedure) Act, 2048, Health Service Act, 2052, Administrative court rule, 2051, VDC, DDC Act, 2048, Local autonomous govern Act, 2055 etc.

The English administrative law is based on the concept of the Rule of Law, French administrative law is conducting according to the theory of Droit administratif. Nepalese administrative law is regulating according to mixed system of heterogeneity, though, Droit administratif or administrative law studied as separate subject from long ago. The scope of administrative law in our country is very much similar to that in the United States and India.

Rule of Law

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The expression ―Rule of law‖ plays an important role in administrative law. It provides protection to the people against the arbitrary action of the administrative authorities. The expression rule of law‘ has been derived from the French phrase ‗la principle de legalite‘, meaning a government based on the principles of law. In simple words, the term ‗rule of law, indicates the state of affairs in a country where, in main, the law rules. Law may be taken to mean mainly a rule or principle which governs the external actions of human beings, and which is recognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice.

Procedural Elements
Almost all administrative lawyers or anyone embarking a research on this dynamic concept usually starts to treat the subject by espousing the approach and definition given to it by the renowned English constitutional lawyer, Dicey. (1888)gave the most influential definition of rule law which mainly comprises the following three elements.

A. The supremacy of Law (Principle of Legality)
For Dicey (1888 🙂 the primary meaning of rule of law is supremacy of the ordinary laws of the land over the actions of public officials and administrative agencies. He writes:
It means, in the first place, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power, and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even wide discretionary authority on the part of the government.

Hence, one aspect of the concept of rule of law is absolute predominance, or supremacy of law over arbitrary, government actions. Simply stated, it means every administrative action that should be taken according to law. Applied to the powers of government, this requires that every government authority which does some act which would otherwise be a wrong (such as taking a man‘s house), or which infringes a man‘s liberty (as by refusing him a trade license), must be able to justify its action as authorized by law. An administrative agency or public official is required to justify its action by clearly establishing that it is expressly or impliedly empowered or authorized by act of the parliament (i.e. proclamation issued by the House of People‘s Representatives). This means also that in the absence of any authority, the affected party whose rights and liberties have been violated as a result of the action of government, should be able to take the case to court and have it invalidated.

However, acting according to law does not satisfy the meaning of rule of law in the presence of wide discretionary powers. Parliament may confer on the specific administrative agency, wide discretionary powers that enables the agency to take unpredictable and in some cases of the arbitrary actions. Hence, the government should be conducted within the framework of the recognized rules and principles that restrict discretionary power. In many countries, typically in England, many of the rules of the administrative law are rules for restricting the wide powers, which acts of parliament confer very freely on ministers and other authorities.

B. Principle of Equality
“ . . .It means equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land administered by the ordinary law courts.”
One meaning of the above statement is that disputes, as to the legality of acts of government, are to be decided by judges who are independent of the executive. This aspect of the rule of law, which is typical characteristics of English administrative law, is largely based on the principle of the separation of powers which prohibits interference among the three government branches, Hence, not only civil cases, but also administrative disputes that should be adjudicated by the ordinary courts; not by the separate administrative courts.
In France, the same principle of separation of powers resulted in a totally opposite conception of the rule of law. According to French administrative law ( droit adminstratif), disputes between the individual and the government are settled by separate administrative courts, the conseil de etat being the supreme administrative court. It is said that this system was developed in France based on the strict interpretation of the separation of powers. Dicey emphatically rejected the French system of the administrative law (droit adminstratif). because of his emphasis on the ordinary law courts as opposed to any specialized administrative law courts as ultimate arbiter of disputes between the government and the individual.
Another aspect of the principle of equality is that the issue that states the law should be even- handed between government and citizen. In other words, those laws governing the relationship between individuals should also similarly be applicable to the relationship between individuals and government. This implies that government officials should not entertain different, or special privileges. However, the intensive form of the government and the complexities of administration sometimes necessitate granting special powers (privileges) to the government. What the rule of law requires is that the government should not enjoy unnecessary privileges, or exemptions from the ordinary law.

C. Constitution Is a result of the Ordinary Law of the Land
“ It means the constitution is the result of the ordinary law as developed by the courts through the common law tradition and provides for the legal protection of the individual not via a bill of rights, but through the development of the common law”
The rule of law lastly means that the general principles of the constitution are the result of judicial decisions of the courts in England. In many countries rights such as right to personal liberty, freedom from arrest, freedom to hold public meetings are guaranteed by a written constitution. However this is not so in England. These rights are the result of judicial decisions in concrete cases that have actually arisen between the parties. The constitution is not the source but the consequence of the rights of the individuals. Thus, Dicey emphasized the role of the courts as ultimate guarantors of liberty.

Substantive Elements
The modern concept of the rule of law is fairly wide and, therefore, sets up an ideal for government to achieve. This concept was developed by the international commission of jurists, known as Delhi Declarations, in 1959, which was later on confirmed at Logos in 1967. According to this formulation, the rule of law implies that the functions of government in a free society should be exercised so as to create conditions in which the dignity of man, as an individual, is upheld.
In recent years, wide claims have been made as to the proper sphere of rule of the law. The presence of representative democracy, beneficial social and economic services and conditions, personal independency (privacy) and independent judiciary has all been taken as indicators and elements of the rule of law. One way to understand the concept is making a contrast between the two approaches which are the ‗formal‘ and ‗substantive‘ (ideological) versions of the rule of law. The former is not much more than the principle of legality, and the latter insists on a wide range of positive content.

Rule of Law as a Foundation of Administrative Law
In simple terms, the rule of law requires that government should operate with in the confines of the law; and that aggrieved citizens whose interest have been adversely affected be entitled to approach an independent court to adjudicate whether or not a particular action taken by or on behalf of the state is in accordance with the law. In these instances, the courts examine a particular decision made by an official, or an official body to determine whether it falls with in the authority conferred by law on the decision maker. In other words, the courts rule as to whether or not the decision is legally valid. It is in this way that the principle of rule of law serves as the foundation of the administrative law. It has been repeatedly said that the basic purpose of the administrative law is to control excessive and arbitrary governmental power. This purpose is mainly achieved through the ordinary courts by reviewing and checking the legality of any administrative action. Therefore, administrative law as a branch of law, is rooted in the principle of the rule of law. This principle mainly stipulates that every administrative action should be according to law. The different control mechanisms of power in administrative law by preventing government not to go beyond the authority granted to it by law ensure that rule of law is respected.
Hence, the expression ―Rule of Law‖ plays an important role in administrative law. It provides protection to the people against arbitrary action of the administrative law.
To clearly understand the relationship between the rule of law and the administrative law, it is important to examine a related doctrine of the administrative law, which is the doctrine of ultra virus. The doctrine to some extent is a derivation of the principle of the rule of law. The former underlines that power should be exercised according to law. The later, goes one step further and states that an action of any official or agency beyond the scope of power given to it is ultra virus (i.e. beyond power), hence it is considered as null and void. An ultra virus act does not have any binding effect in the eyes of the law.
The simple proposition that a public authority may not act outside its powers (ultra virus) might fitly be called the central principles of the administrative law. The juristic basic of judicial review is the doctrine of ultra virus. According to Wade & Forsyth an administrative act that is ultra virus or outside of jurisdiction (in case of action by administrative court) is void in law, i.e. deprived of any legal effect. This is, in order to be valid, it needs statutory authorization, and if it is not within the powers given by the act, it has no legal leg to stand on it. Once the court has declared that some administrative act is legally a nullity, the situation is as if nothing has happened. Administrative law by invalidating an ultra virus act ensures that every administrative action is in conformity with the law; indirectly guaranteeing the observance of rule of law.

Rule of law as a foundation of the administrative law has been briefly explained above. But at the same time, you should also be aware of the fact that the principle also serves as a limitation on the scope of administrative law.
It has been clearly pointed out in chapter one that the proper scope of the administrative law is procedure, not substance. This means, it is concerned with the decision-making procedure (how power is exercised), rather than the decision itself. To a wider extent the study of the administrative law has been limited to analyzing the manner in which matters move through an agency, rather than the wisdom of the matters themselves. Whether a certain decision is right is not a matter to be investigated under the administrative law, rather it should be left to the decision-making agency since it purely involves policy considerations. Similarly, the principle of the rule of law does not go to the extent of ensuring whether a certain agency‘s decision is right or wrong. Its primary meaning is attached to the principle of the legality or the superiority of law. Its concern is to ensure that a administrative action is taken according to law.
The court, in reviewing an administrative action, is expected to see or examine the legality of the action only. In judicial review, the judges do not substitute their own discretion and judgment for that of the government. They simply rule whether the government or its officials have acted within the ambit of their lawful authority. Thus, the judges do not ―govern‖ the country, and do not ―displace‖ the government when government decisions are challenged in the courts.
The principle of the rule of law, by limiting its scope only to legality, or in some cases to fairness of the administrative action, simultaneously serves as a limitation to the scope of the administrative law.

Administrative Discretion

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Discretionary powers are permissive, not mandatory. They are powers granted either under statute or delegation which do not impose a duty on the decision-maker to exercise them or to exercise them in a particular way. Within certain constraints, decision-makers are able to choose whether and/or how to exercise discretionary powers.

No public official has an unfettered discretionary power. Public officials must exercise discretionary powers in accordance with any applicable legal requirements, reasonably, impartially and avoiding oppression or unnecessary injury.

Agencies should adopt policies and procedures which set out the general approach to be followed in at least each major area of activity for which they are responsible. This should ensure that the agency’s powers are exercised consistently from case to case, unless the merits of any particular case justify a different approach.

Administrative decisions often include the exercise of discretion. Discretion exists when the decision-maker has the power to make a choice about whether to act or not act, to approve or not approve, or to approve with conditions. The role of the decision-maker is to make a judgement taking into account all relevant information.

Powers to act and to exercise discretion

For public sector decision-making, legislation generally provides the lawful authority for action to be taken and for decisions to be made. Public sector decision-making may be undertaken:

As part of fulfilling responsibilities to ensure the efficient and effective management and performance of a public authority, eg, under the general public sector legislation; or
As part of taking action or making decisions under agency or department-specific legislation relating to the services delivered by the public authority.

Relevant administrative law principles

In exercising discretionary powers, various principles of administrative law require public officials to:

use discretionary powers in good faith and for a proper purpose (ie, honestly and only within the scope of and for the purpose for which the power was given)
base their decision on logically probative material (ie, logical reasons, information that proves the issues in question, relevant and reliable evidence)
consider only relevant considerations and not consider irrelevant considerations
give adequate weight to a matter of great importance but not give excessive weight to a relevant factor of no great importance
exercise their discretion independently and not act under the dictation or at the behest of any third person or body
give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of the particular case, and not apply policy inflexibly, and
observe the basic rules of procedural fairness (ie, natural justice).

Other principles of administrative law preclude public officials from:

making decisions in matters in which they have an actual or reasonably perceived conflict of interests
Improperly fettering their own discretion (or that of future decision-makers) by, for example, adopting a policy that prescribes decision-making in certain circumstances
exercising a discretion in a way that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person would have exercised the power in that way
exercising a discretionary power in such a way that the result is uncertain
acting in a way that is biased or conveys a reasonable perception of bias
making decisions that are arbitrary, vague or fanciful
refusing to exercise a discretionary power in circumstances where the decision-maker is under a duty to do so, or
unreasonably delaying the making of a decision that the decision-maker is under a duty to make.

It is a serious matter for public officials to ignore valid advice or valid considerations, particularly for the purposes of avoiding discomfort or embarrassment on the part of the government, agency or decision-maker.

Policies and practices to guide the exercise of discretionary power

Not every situation demands a policy, and policies are not a panacea capable of properly addressing all circumstances. However, policies are an important means of guiding decision-makers in exercising discretionary powers appropriately, consistently and fairly.

Policies should include an objective and the criteria to be used in decision-making to help ensure that:

all relevant legal requirements are complied with
all relevant factors are considered
there is consistency in decision-making, and
the decision-making process is transparent and accountable.

As a matter of principle, it is unacceptable for an agency to adopt and implement a policy that adversely affects, or could adversely affect, the rights or interests of any member of the public where the existence or content of the policy is kept secret or the policy document is not available for inspection and purchase on request.

Policies adopted by agencies should be communicated to relevant staff and members of the public. In this regard, s.15 of the Freedom of Information Act requires that agencies must ensure each of their policy documents are available for inspection and purchase by members of the public.

Legislative (Rule Making) Power

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Legislative power of administrative agencies, usually known as rule- making power and more formally delegated legislation, is the power of agencies to enact binding rules through the power delegated to them by the legislator. The complex nature of the modern state is that such elected representatives are not capable of passing laws to govern every situation. Many of their lawmaking powers, as well as the power to administer and implement the laws, are therefore delegated to administrative agencies. These agencies are involved in virtually every area of government activity and affect ordinary citizens in many ways, whether these citizens are home owners needing a building permit to erect a new room, or injured employees seeking workers’ compensation, or farmers selling their produce.

Efficient and effective administration necessarily requires promulgation of laws, flexible to the existing situation and dealing with detailed technical matters. These laws have to be provided in the required quantity and quality. However, due to the limitation of the on parliament as regards to the availability of sufficient time and expertise, the lawmaker will be compelled to delegate some of its powers to the administrative agencies.
When legislative power is delegated to administrative agency, it has to be exercised fairly and only with a view to attain its purpose. The agency should also enact rules within the limits of delegation set by the lawmaker.

Practically, it is difficult to avoid instances in which power may corrupt. Thus the lawmaker when delegating power should simultaneously introduce controlling mechanisms to ensure that individual‘s liberty and freedom is not violated by the administration. Most importantly, the lawmaker, when granting power, is expected to provide specific procedure of rule-making. In most countries, an administrative agency exercising its legislative function is required to give notice to the public of the proposed rule and incorporate comments from the public. This ensures public participation in the administrative process. The rules issued by the agencies should also be published in a formal instrument, which is easily accessible to the public, thus, encouraging openness in the public administration.

Meaning of Administrative Law

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Administrative law

Administrative law is primarily concerned with the manner of exercising governmental power. The decision making process is more important than the decision itself. Secondly, administrative law cannot fully be defined without due regard to the functional approach. This is to mean that the function (purpose) of administrative law should be the underlying element of any definition. The ultimate purpose of administrative law is controlling exercise of governmental power. The control aspect‘ impliedly shades some light on the other components of its definition.

Austin has defined administrative law, as the law which determines the ends and modes to which the sovereign power shall be exercised. In his view, the sovereign power shall be exercised either directly by the monarch or indirectly by the subordinate political superiors to whom portions of those powers are delegated or committed in trust.

Davis who represents the American approach defines administrative law as; ―The law that concerns the powers and procedures of administrative agencies, specially the law governing judicial review of administrative action.‖

Massey gives a wider and working definition of administrative law in the following way.

“ Administrative law is that branch of public law which deals with the organization and powers of administrative and quasi administrative agencies and prescribes the principles and rules by which an official action is reached and reviewed in relation to individual liberty and freedom”

It studies powers of administrative agencies. The nature and extent of such powers is relevant to determine whether any administrative action is ultra-vires or there is an abuse of power. It studies the rules, procedures and principles of exercising these powers. Parliament, when conferring legislative or adjudicative power on administrative agencies, usually prescribes specific rules governing the manner of exercising such powers. In some cases, the procedure may be provided as a codified act applicable to all administrative agencies. It also studies rules and principles applicable to the manner of exercising governmental powers such as principles of fairness, reasonableness, rationality and the rules of natural justice.

Administrative agencies while exercising their powers may exceed the legal limit abuse their power or fail to comply with minimum procedural requirements. Administrative law studies control mechanisms like legislative & institutional control and control by the courts through judicial review.

It studies remedies available to aggrieved parties whose rights and interests may be affected by unlawful and unjust administrative actions. Administrative law is concerned with effective redress mechanisms to aggrieved parties. Mainly it is concerned with remedies through judicial review, such as certiorari, mandamus, injunction and habeas corpus.

Differences between Constitutional and Administrative Law

Therefore, Keith observed:

“It is logically impossible to distinguish administrative from constitutional law and all attempts to do so are artificial”.

However, according to Holland, “Constitutional law describes the various organs of the government at rest, while administrative law describes them in motion”

Therefore, according to this view, the structure of the legislature and executive comes within the purview of the constitutional law but there functioning comes within the sphere of administrative law.

According to Jennings– administrative law deals with the organization, functions, powers, and duties of administrative authorities while constitutional law deals with the general principles relating to the organization and powers of the various organs of the state and their mutual relationship of these organs with the individuals. In other words, constitutional law deals with fundamentals while administrative law deals with details.

Differences Between the Constitutional and Administrative Law of India

Accordingly to Keith: “It is logically impossible to distinguish administrative law from constitutional law and all attempts to do so are artificial.” But still some of the most important differences between the constitutional and administrative law of India are:

Constitutional Law:

It is the supreme and highest law of the country. No law can be regarded above the law of the constitution of India.
The constructional law is always regarded as the genus. It is the main law.
This law mainly deals with various organs of a state.
It mainly deals with the structure of the state.
It touches all the branches of law and gives guidelines with regard to the general principle relating to organization and powers of organs of the state, and their relations between citizens and towards the state.
It also gives guidelines about intentional relations.
It deals with the general principle of state pertaining to all branches.
It demarcates the constitutional status of Ministers and public servants.
It imposes certain negative duties on administrators if they are found violating the fundamental rights of the citizens and etc. It also imposes certain positive duties on administrators, viz, implementation of social welfare schemes.
The constitutional laws have complete control over the administrative law and administrators of the country.

Administrative Law:

It is not the supreme law of the country rather it is subordinate to the constitutional law.
Administrative law is the species of constitutional law.
It deals with the organs of the state as motion.
It mainly deals with the various functions of the state.
It doesn’t deal with all branches of law, rather it details with the powers and functions of administrative authorities.
It does not deal with international law. It deals exclusively with the powers and functions of administrative authorities.
It deals with the powers and functions of administrative authorities, including services, public departments, local authorities and other statutory bodies exercising administrative powers, quasi-judicial powers, etc.
It is concerned with the organization of the services or the working of the various government departments.
The administrators have to follow constitutional law first and next to the administrative law.
The administrators should perform their functions with utmost obedience to constitutional law. Administrative law is just a subordinate to constitutional law.

Definition

On his part, Foulks: Administrative law 7th edition, page 1, defines:
Administrative law is the law relating public administration. It is concerned with the legal forms and constitutional status of public authorities; with their powers and duties and with the procedures followed in exercising them; with their legal relationships with one another, with the public and with their employees; which seek, in varied ways, to control their activities.

H.W.R.Wade & C.F.Forsyth, (1994), Administrative law, 7th edition

In his view, Wade: Administrative law 7th edition pg 4, defines Administrative law in the following words:

A first approximation to a definition of Administrative law is to say that “it is the law relating to the control of government power”

Wade asserts “the primary purpose of Administrative law, therefore, is to keep the powers of government within their legal bounds, so as to protect the citizen against their abuse. The powerful engines of authority must be prevented from running ‘amok’.” Wade further contends that “abuse”, it should be made clear, carries no necessary innuendo of malice or bad faith. He further elaborates this by stating that government departments may misunderstand their legal position as easily as many other people and the law which they have to administer is frequently complex and uncertain. Abuse is therefore inevitable, and it is all the more necessary that the law should provide means to check it. In addition to this, Wade further asserts that it is also the concern of administrative law to see that public authorities can be compelled to perform their duties if they make default. At page 5, Wade tries to distinguish functions of Administrative law from the structure by giving a second approximation to a definition of Administrative law. He thus states “It may be said to be a body of general principles which govern the exercise of powers and duties by public authorities”. In this regard, Wade contends that “the whole of Administrative law may indeed be treated as a branch of Constitutional law since is flows directly from the constitutional principles of the rule of law, the sovereignty of parliament and the independence of the judiciary; and, it does much to determine the balance of power between the state and the citizens.” To this extent, Wade further asserts, “As liberty is subjected, justice must be added. That the more power the government wields, the more sensitive its public opinion to any kind of abuse or unfairness. The machinery of Administrative justice therefore combines Administrative authorities, Administrative functions, judicial control and how that control and authority can be exercised.

It is important to note is that the whole essence of Administrative law is to advocate for or uphold natural justice most especially for public servants or any other person appearing before an administrative tribunal.

Limitation of Delegated Legislation

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

(i) Constitutional supremacy.

(ii) Not contradictory to Acts.

(iii) Judicial Review –principle of ultra vires.

parliamentary supremacy in England, so no judicial review of parliament’s delegated authority there.

(iv) Legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative functions, it must lay down policies and principles and may delegate power to fill in details and execute policy.

Application of the rule by the Supreme Court of Nepal

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Application of the rule by the Supreme Court of Nepal:

In Nepal the requirement of hearing is particularly observed and spelt out by the Supreme Court in connection with the fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed under the constitution. The extraordinary power of the court to review the administrative action through writs enriches the applicability of the principles of natural justice in diverse ways.

The following cases show the role of the Supreme Court in administering justice through the rule of Audi Alteram Partem:

P. Koirala v. HMG, 2016: –
It is regarded as the first landmark case in the judicial history of Nepal in which the rule of natural justice was highlighted by the court in connection with the invalid action of the executive action. Here, the court expressed, that the constitutional guaranteed right could not be taken away by an administrative order in the name of public security and welfare without providing the detainee the sufficient grounds and reasons for such detention order. The court further stated that it is the fundamental principle of law and justice that a person, against whom an action is taken, must be properly informed with reasons. Any legal proceeding if initiated against him without notice and grounds, it is a violation of the rules of justice.

Rishikesh Shah v. the Chief Zonal Commissioner, 2027: –
The Supreme Court stressed that the petitioner hold the right to know the grounds of detention as it was inherent under the equality clause of the constitution and a part of the natural justice.

Moona Acharya v. the Kathmandu District Court, 2048: –
The court stated that a concerned authority who is confiscating the property of a citizen is under the obligation to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his/her case. The court further expressed, though procedural fairness is the requirement of justice, it does not mean that this requirement can be fulfilled at the disposal and convenience of the petitioner. Therefore, if a reasonable opportunity is given for a hearing, that is quiet sufficient to satisfy the requirement of natural justice.

Lalit Ratna Shakya v. Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, 2050: –
The Supreme Court here observed that the principle of audi alteram partem includes a reasonable amount of time to be given to the litigant to present his case, a clear statement of the charges made against him and a favorable environment in which he may state his position.

Rukma Shamsher Rana v. HMG, 2054: –
The court observed, if any action is taken against any member of the national games and sports, he is required to be given an opportunity to be heard as hearing has become an essential phenomena in the present age. Therefore, if a person is dismissed from his post without any notice and ground, there can exist the monopoly of the administration and good governance of the country can become meaningless.

Haribanta Lal Shrestha v. Managing Committee, the Nepal Bank Ltd. : –
The court once again highlighted the importance of the rule of natural justice. The petitioner in this case was debarred from the opportunity to be heard and to produce evidence in his favor. The court condemned the action of the executive and ruled that the principles of natural justice are not founded merely on formalities rather they are the meaningful rules to provide the substantive justice. They help and facilitate in providing definite, solid and concrete justice.

Krishna Prasad Pande v. HMG: –
The petitioner was detained under sec. 3(1)of the Public Security Act, 1989. He was not given the chance of hearing. Grounds for his detention were also not provided to him. The court quashed such detention order of the authority as the order was inconsistent to the principle of natural justice. The court issued the writ of Habeas Corpus to set the petitioner free.

Administrative Power

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Administrative power is the residual power that is neither legislative nor judicial. It is concerned with the treatment of a particular situation and is devoid of generality. It has no procedural obligations of collecting evidence and weighing argument. It is based on subjective satisfaction where decision is based on policy and expediency. It does not decide on a right though it may affect a right. Advisory and investigative power of agencies may be mentioned as two typical examples of administrative power. In its advisory function, an agency may submit a report to the president or the head of executive and the legislature. Cases falling under advisory function include proposing a new legislation to the legislature, and informing the public prosecutor the need to take measure when there is violation of law. Disclosing information to the general public that should be known in the public interest and publishing advisory opinions are also regarded as advisory (administrative) functions.

Investigation is one of the major functions of administrative agencies. While exercising their investigative powers, agencies investigate activities and practices that may be illegal. Because of this investigative power, agencies can gather and compile information concerning the organization and business practices of any corporation or industry engaged in commerce to determine whether there has been a violation of any law. In exercising their investigative functions, agencies may use the subpoena power. A subpeona is a legal instrument that directs the person receiving it to appear at a specified time and place either to testify or to produce document require reports, examine witnesses under oath, examine and copy documents, or obtain information from other governmental offices. This power of investigation complements the exercise of the agency‘s powers, especially the power to adjudicate.

Importance/ Purpose of Administrative law

Administrative Law Notes — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Importance/ Purpose of Administrative law:

Administrative law embodies general principles applicable to the exercise of the powers and duties of authorities in order to ensure that the myriad and discretionary powers available to the executive conform to basic standards of legality and fairness. The ostensible purpose of these principles is to ensure that there is accountability, transparency and effectiveness in exercising of power in the public domain, as well as the observance of rule of law.

Peer Leyland and Tery Woods have identified the following as the underlying purposes of administrative law.

It has a control function, acting in a negative sense as a brake or check in respect of the unlawful exercise or abuse of governmental/ administrative power.
It can have a command function by making public bodies perform their statutory duties, including the exercise of discretion under a statute.
It embodies positive principles to facilitate good administrative practice; for example, in ensuring that the rules of natural justice or fairness are adhered to.
It operates to provide accountability and transparency, including participation by interested individuals and parties in the process of government.
It may provide a remedy for grievances at the hands of public authorities.

Similarly I.P. Massey (I.P. Massey, Administrative Law, 5th ed.) identifies the four basic bricks of the foundation of administrative law as:

To check abuse of administrative power.
To ensure to citizens an impartial determination of their disputes by officials so as to protect them from unauthorized encroachment of their rights and interests.
To make those who exercise public power accountable to the people.
To realize these basic purposes, it is necessary to have a system of administrative law rooted in basic principles of rule of law and good administration. A comprehensive, advanced and effective system of administrative law is underpinned by the following three broad principles:

Administrative justice, which at its core, is a philosophy that in administrative decision- making the rights and interests of individuals should be properly safeguarded.
Executive accountability, which has the aim of ensuring that those who exercise the executive (and coercive) powers of the state can be called on to explain and justify the way in which they have gone about that task.
Good administration- Administrative decision and action should conform to universally accepted standards, such as rationality, fairness, consistency and transparency.