TyroCity: Administrative Law Notes

Judicial control over delegated legislation

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

Judicial control over delegated legislation occupies an important place in the field of control mechanisms. Judicial control means assessment by the court of the legal validity of a piece of delegated legislation which the court may do first, with reference to the constitution by applying the doctrine of ultra vires and secondly, with reference to the other recognized principles of law. It is the most effective method to keep the administration within legal boundaries. The interim constitution of Nepal 2063 the fundamental law of the land and all laws inconsistent with it shall be void. And can be so declared by the supreme court of Nepal. And stressing the importance and the judicial review supreme court has also stated, “If court were to close its door for the injured people whose legal and constitutional rights have been curtailed, then injured will always suffer injustice and the government and public officials will become more and more arbitrary and ultimately the constitutional aim of rule of law will not be achieved. It is the integral constitutional principle that forms a very important regulating mechanism of democratic government and for the protection of people’s rights. It is not only a means to checking executive action but also an ultimate watchdog of the people’s fundamental rights.

Judicial is adjective of the judiciary. It means 1) the power of a court to interpret statutes and to declare them when they violate the constitution. 2) A form of appeal from an administrative body to the courts for control of the agency’s finding of fact or law.

The general theory of judicial control is called the doctrine of Ulta-vires. Administrative power derives from the statute. The limits are found in the statute itself or in the general principles of the construction by the courts. Judicial control, therefore, means control and is based on the fundamental principle of the legal system that powers can be validly exercised only within their true limits.

The scope of judicial control may be classified by the following principles.

Breach of the principle of Natural justice
Excess of power of “substantive” ultra vires.
Errors of law
Failure to perform a duty
Bad faith or abuse of power

Meaning and definition of Delegated Legislation

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

Delegated legislation means legislation made by bodies other than legislature. Delegated legislation means a legislation which is passed by a body to which the power of legislation is delegated by the statute. The parliament delegates the power making rules, regulation, orders etc to certain bodies and authorities. Such powers are exercised by these authorities within the limits and in accordance with the limits and in accordance with the principles laid down by parliament. In other word, when the function of legislation is entrusted to organs other than parliament by word, when the function of legislation is entrusted to organ other than the legislation. Delegated legislation is generally known as rules, regulations, bye-laws or notification etc.

‘Delegated legislation’ in Nepal is generally expressed as statutory rules and orders, but expressions like, ‘regulation’, notification, bye-laws, schemes, direction etc are also employed in the same context. The practice in England, India, France has been the same. The term statute law covers both acts of parliament and delegated legislation. It is also called subordinate legislation.

According to R.Dayal, “Delegated legislation means legislation which is passed by a body to which the power of legislation is delegated by the statute.”

According to Salmond, “Delegated legislation as that which proceeds from any authority other than the sovereign power and is therefore dependent for its continuous existence and validity on some superior or supreme authority.”

According to jain and jain, The term delegated legislation is used in two sense.

The exercise by a subordinate agency of the legislative power delegated to it by legislature, or
The subsidiary rules themselves which are made by the subordinate agency pursuance of the power as mentioned in no (a).

So, from above definition we can say that delegated legislation is a subordinate legislation by the authority other than the legislature and it gets legal validity and recognition on the basis of the law promulgated by the supreme authority.

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.

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.)

Structure and Procedure of Quasi-Judicial Bodies/Administrative Tribunals

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

Structure

Quasi-judicial body/administrative authority exercising adjudicatory powers/administrative adjudication

(i) Not based on any uniform conventional pattern, and is derived from a statute or a statutory rule

(ii) Sometimes they are an integral part of the administration, and sometimes autonomous.

(iii) Adjudicatory powers may be given to a single individual or to a multi-member body.

(iv) Besides exercising adjudicatory powers, they may also exercise other regulatory and administrative powers.

(v) No uniform formal qualification is prescribed. Sometimes, a legal qualification is prescribed and sometimes a technical qualification

unlike courts where the structure is based on uniform pattern, and judges are required to have the necessary legal qualifications and experience, and they exercise only judicial functions.

However, there are administrative tribunals which are autonomous and their members are required to have prescribed qualifications and exercise only judicial powers.

The only difference between a court and an administrative agency exercising adjudicatory powers/administrative tribunal/quasi-judicial body seems to be the legislative classification. A court is a court because it has been classified as such, and an administrative tribunal is an administrative tribunal because it has been designated as such.

Procedure

(i) No uniform procedure which administrative tribunals are required to follow. Differs from agency to agency.

(ii) Sometimes procedure is prescribed by the statute which creates the adjudicatory authority, sometimes the agencies are left free to prescribe their own procedure

(iii) ALL of these administrative tribunals follow the rules of natural justice in adjudication.

(Courts follow a uniform, fixed statutory procedure)

(iv) Many administrative tribunals are vested with the powers of a general court for the purpose of summoning witnesses, examining them on oath, compelling the production of document, etc.

(v) Courts of law are bound by precedents, principle of res judicata and technical rules of the Evidence Act and procedural law; but administrative tribunals are not uniformly and strictly bound by them.

(vi) There is more emphasis on policy considerations, compared to a court of law which is more concerned with application of law in its decision.

(vii) Quicker, cheaper than courts usually.

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.

Reasons for the Growth of Administrative agencies/ Administrative Adjudication

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

Agencies are created and assigned specific tasks by the legislature. They carry out the tasks making decisions of various sorts and supervising the procedure by which the decisions are carried out. There are many reasons why administrative agencies might be needed. Almost every governmental agency has been created because of a recognized problem in society, and from the belief that an agency may be able to help in solving the problems. The following are the main reasons for the creation of the administrative agencies.

A. Providing Specificity
The legislative branch of government cannot legislate in sufficient detail to cover all aspects of many problems. The house of the people‘s representatives cannot possibly legislate in minute detail and, as a consequence, it uses more and more general language in stating its regulatory aims and purposes. For instance, the house of people‘s representatives cannot enact a tax law that covers every possible issue that might arise. Therefore, it delegates to the council of ministers and ministry of revenue the power to make rules and regulations to fill in the gaps, and create the necessary detail to make tax laws workable. In many areas, the agency has to develop detailed rules and regulations to carryout the legislative policy.
It is also true that courts could not handle all disputes and controversies that may arise. They simply do not have the time or the personnel to handle the multitude of cases. For instance, the labour relations board entertains and resolves so many number of collective labour disputes between employees and employers. Similarly, the tax appeal commission and the welfare (pension) appeal tribunal adjudicate and decide vast number of administrative litigations within their jurisdiction. The creation of such adjudicatory agencies (usually known as quasi- administrative agencies) is necessary, because of the fact that they have, specialized knowledge and expertise to deal effectively with the detailed, specific and technical matters, which are normally beyond the competency of judges of ordinary courts.

B. Providing Protection
Many government agencies exist to protect the public, especially from the business community. Business has often failed to regulate itself, and the lack of self- regulation has often been contrary to the public interest. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency is created to regulate environmental pollution. In the absence of such agency, business could not voluntarily refrain from polluting the environment. The same can be said with respect to quality of private higher education and unjustified and unreasonable increase in the price of essential goods. The Ministry of Education and Ministry of Trade and Industry, regulate respectively both of these cases to protect consumers and the public at large.

C. Providing Services
Many agencies are created simply out of necessity. If we are to have roads, the Nepal Roads Authority is necessary. Welfare programs require government personnel to administer them. Social security programs necessitate that there should be a federal agency to determine eligibility and pay benefits. The Nepal Social Security Authority is established to process pension payment and to determine entitlement to such benefit. The mere existence of most government programs automatically creates new agencies or expands the function of the existing ones.

The following may be summarized as purposes of the administrative agencies.

A) Regulation
One of the key reasons for regulating economic activities by the government is the inability of business to regulate itself. When the government decides to regulate a certain sector, it entrusts the task to the administrative agencies. Agencies offer several advantages over regulation through the legislature and courts in the management of complex and technical regulatory problems. Because they are specialized bodies, they can consider technical details more effectively than the legislature.
When the government regulates business its aim is to minimize the negative impacts of a free economy. In the absence of regulation, business does not respond to concerns over the environment and consumers. Some of the justifications for regulation include:

To control monopoly power
Agencies are often created to replace competition with regulation. In this case the agency may determine rate (e.g. transportation, or electricity). Sometimes the difference in bargaining power may be a ground for regulation, avoiding monopoly power of one party. Such instances include regulation of banking, insurance and labour relations.

To control excess profit
The agency regulates business to ensure that business is not collecting excess profit, which may endanger the laws of free market and also may pose a danger to consumers.

To compensate for externalities
―Externalities‖ occasionally referred to as ―spillovers‖, that occur when the cost of producing something does not reflect the true cost to society for producing the goods. One example is manufacturing process that creates air pollution for which society pays the clean up costs. A business organization, unless otherwise it becomes sure that there is also corresponding participation by other companies, will not install costly pollution control equipment. Doing so will drive up that company‘s costs which makes it unable to compete with other companies in producing the same product without equipment and selling their products at a lower price. So, some entity i.e. a government agency must require all companies to make those investments (installing equipments) in order to spread the costs of pollution control over the entire industry..

To compensate for inadequate information
Compensating for inadequate information is a justification for a great deal of legislation for consumer protection. Purchasers of food, for instance, cannot analyze the nutritional content or the health hazards of various food products so that there has to be some organ that ensures these tests are fulfilled.

To compensate for unequal bargaining of powers
Contracts between banks & customers, insurers & the insured, employees & employers are adhesive in their nature. Either the consumer has to take it or leave it. Hence, it becomes self-evident to regulate and set minimum standards to minimize the effect of unequal bargaining of power.

B) Government exactions
In addition to regulation, administrative agencies may also engage in government exactions. Government exactions are the traditional powers and responsibilities of agencies. Such functions include collection of tax and military conscription.

C) Disbursement of money or other commodities
This purpose of administrative agencies is also the prominent one which characterizes the welfare state. In this regard, through the social security programme and other government systems of insurance or compensation, agencies disburse public money as payment of pensions for veterans or assistance for the aged, the disabled, the unemployed and generally the needy. The payments may be directly through cash or food rations.

D) Provision of goods and services
Nowadays, the government is in charge of building and maintaining roads, high ways and dams, the provision of police force and other protective services. Funding public education and the health service may also be mentioned as additional examples. More recent additions include mass transit communications, satellite systems, government research and development programmes, public hospitals and public housing.

Other Reasons

i) Intensive form of government; welfare state

(ii) Informal, cheap and quick vs. expensive, time-consuming litigation in court

(iii) Expertise, specialization and experimentation needed to develop and apply new public law standards

(iv) Growing emphasis on preventive justice rather than punitive justice

(vi) To reach decisions not strictly according to law as such, but on the ground of policy considerations and mutual give and take

(vii) Courts are groaning under the weight of pending cases and if the whole mass of fresh litigation arising in an intensive form of government is diverted to them, the judicial system would virtually collapse

Exception to The Rule of Natural Justice

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

Exclusion of Natural Justice-:

Though the rule of natural justice namely, nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem, have now a definite meaning and connotation in law, and their content and implications are well understood and firmly established, they are nonetheless not statutory rules. Each of these rule yields to and changes with the exigencies of different situations. They do not apply in the same manner to situations which are alike. These rules are not cast in a rigid mould nor they be put in al legal strait-jacket. They are not immutable but flexible. These rules can be adopted and modified but statues and statutory rules and also by the constitution of the tribunal which has to decide a particular matter and the rules by which such tribunal is governed.[1] There are exceptional situation which exercised this types of practice informed the administration tribunals and so many laws are overtake the natural justice may be excluded-:

1. Statutory exclusion
The principles of natural justice do not suppliant the law but supplements it. It follows where the statute is silent about the compliance with the principles of natural justice; such statutory silence is taken to imply observance of the principles of natural justice. However, where a statue excluded the application of any or all the rules of natural justice than court cannot ignored statutory mandate and read in to the concerned provision the requirement natural justice.[2]

2. Exclusion in cases of legislative function
Legislative action, plenary or subordinate, is not subject to the rules of natural justice. This is so because these rules lay down a policy without reference to particular individual especially it was applied disciplinary action which is exercised the rights to maintained peace and security and privacy. Legislative action, for example, price fixing, is a direction of general character, not directed against a particular person or individual manufacturer or trader. There is no question invoking principles of natural justice in such cases.[3]

3. Exclusion in Emergency
In exceptional cases of emergency where prompt and preventive action is required, the principles of natural justice need not to be observed. According to Justice krshna Iyer ….. ‘If to condemn unheard is wrong, it is wrong except where it is overborne by dire social necessity’.[4] Thus, where dangerous building is required to be demolished to save human lives.

However, ‘immediacy’ does not exclude duty to act fairly because even an emergent situation can co-exist with the canons of natural justice. Thus, even in the case of emergency here precious rights of the people are affected; post-decisional hearing has relevance to administrative fairness.

Public interest
There requirement of notice and hearing may be excluded where prompt actions to be taken in the interest of public safety, public health or public morality. In case of pulling down property to extinguish fire, destruction of contiguous plant is animal like destruction of unwholesome food etc. action has to be taken without giving the opportunity of hearing. Nevertheless, hearing may be given in some of this situation after the action has been taken as a corrective measure to see whether mistake has been committed.

Exclusion based on impracticability
Judicial approach in applying the rules of natural justice to fact situations is not theoretical but pragmatic. Where the number of persons is so large that is not practicable to give all of them the opportunity to being heard, the court does not insist an observance of the principle of natural justice. The entire MBA entrance examination was canceled the university because of mass copying, the court held that notice and hearing to all the candidates is not practicable in such situation.[5]

Exclusion based on the Academic evaluation
Where a student is removed from an educational institution on grounds of unsatisfactory academic performance, the requirement of pre decisional hearing is excluded. Thus, a student of the university was removed from the rolls because of unsatisfactory academic performance without giving any hearing.[6]

Exclusion in case of interim disciplinary action
Where disciplinary action is preventive in nature, the observance of the rules of natural justice is excluded. Thus in

Abhay kumar v. K. Srinivasan[7] case the Delhi high court ruled that such an order could be compared with an order of suspension pending enquiry which is preventive in character in order to maintain peace in the campus, and therefore the principles of natural justice not attracted.

Contractual transaction
In state of Gujrat v. M.P. shah Charitable trust[8] the Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice are not attracted in case of termination of an agreement in any contractual field. The reason is clear that termination of an arrangement is neither a quasi judicial nor an administrative act. Hence, the question of duty to act judicially does not arise.

[1] C.K. Thakker, Administrative Law,(Eastern Books Company, 1996), 207

[2] Union of India v. J.N sinha AIR 1971, SC 40

[3] Union of India v. Cynamide India AIR 1987, SC 1802

[4] Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief election commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851

[5] R. Raadha Krishnaman V. Osmania University, AIR 1974Ap 283

[6] Jawar lal Nehru Universityv. B.S. Narwal, AIR 1981 DEL 381

[7] AIR 1981 Del 381

8 3 SCC 552

Public undertaking

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

Public undertaking. An undertaking over which the public authorities directly or indirectly exercise dominant influence by virtue of their ownership, financial participation, or the rules which govern it.

Public Sector Undertaking, known as PSU, is a company in which majority of the stake (more than 50%) is owned by the Government.

An undertaking over which the public authorities directly or indirectly exercise dominant influence by virtue of their ownership, financial participation, or the rules which govern it. A dominant influence of public authorities is in particular presumed when they: a) hold the major part of the undertaking’s subscribed capital, b) control the majority of the votes attached to shares issued by the undertaking or c) are in a position to appoint more than half of the members of the undertaking’s administrative, managerial or supervisory body.

Doctrine of Bias/ Fair Hearing

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

NEMO JUDEX IN RE SUA

Literally, meaning of NEMO JUDEX IN RE SUA “It means no man can be a judge in his own case”. In other words it means rule against bias and it is based on three maxims-:

“No man shall be judge in his own case”
“Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtly be seen to be done”
“Judges, like ceaser’s wife should be alone suspicion”.

In Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country planning[1] Lord Thankerton defines bias as follows-:

“My lord, I could wish that the use of the word ‘bias’ should be confined to proper sphere. Its proper significance in my opinion is to denote a departure from the standard of even handed justice which the law requires from those who occupy judicial office, or those who are commonly regarded as holding a Quasi-judicial office, such as an arbitrator.”

The first requirement of natural justice is that the judge should be impartial and neutral and to be in a position to apply his objectively to the dispute before him. He cannot act as judge of a cause which he himself has same interest either pecuniary or otherwise it is against the neutrality. If the judge is subject to bias in favor or against either party to the dispute or in a position that a bias can be assumed, he is disqualifies to act as a judge. It is a well settled principle of law that justice could not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Justice can never be seen to be done if a man acts as a judge in his own cause or is himself interested in its outcome. This principle applies not only to judicial proceeding but also to Quasi-judicial as well as administrative proceeding.

TYPES OF BIAS

Official Bias or Subject-matter bias

Bias may arise because the adjudicator may have a general interest in the subject matter in dispute because of his association as a member of otherwise with a private body or with the administration in his official company. An administrator adjudicator cannot develop the same kind of neutrality and objectivity towards the issues and institution being presented before him as is the characteristic of a judge.

According to Griffith and street, “only rarely will this bias invalidate proceeding”. A mere general interest in the general object to be pursued would not disqualify a judge from deciding the matter. There must be some direct connection with the litigation[2].

According to wade, mistrial or departmental policy cannot be regarded as a disqualifying bias[3]

Also, in many adjudicatory proceeding before bureaucratic authorities one of the parties is usually the administration itself. Therefore an authority may have official bias towards the department to which it has attached in a dispute between the department and a private party or may have a policy bias i.e. it may be interested in projecting and pursuing policies of the department.

Personal Bias A number of circumstances may give rise to personal bias. Here a judge may be a relative or business associate of a party. He may have some personal grudge, enmity or grievance or professional rivalry against him. In view of these factors there is every likelihood that the judge may be biased towards one party or prejudiced towards the other.

A crude form of personal bias is when the manger of a factory himself conducts inquiry against the workmen who are alleged to have assaulted him[4]or when a person sits on a gram panchayat bench to hear appeal against his conviction[5] or when the adjudicator is a relation of the parties[6] or when a person sits on the selection board to select person for a post for which he himself is a candidate even though he may not participate in it’s deliberation when his name is considered [7]or when the selection committee to select person for civil posts includes the son-in-law of a selected candidate. [8]

Section 30, of Court management of Country code, talks about personal Bias

Pecuniary Bias
There is a presumption that any direct financial interest howsoever small in the matter in dispute disqualifies person from adjudicating. So, a direct pecuniary interest however small will disqualify a person from acting as a judge.
The rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua, or “no man a judge in his own cause”)
Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to a party or issue.

Such operative prejudice may be the result of a preconceived opinion or a predisposition or a predetermination to decide a case in a particular manner, so much so that it does not leave the mind open.

A person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he has an interest, for, as human psychology tells us, very rarely can people take decisions against their own interest.

The rule against bias is concerned with appearances- actual bias need not be established.

(i) Personal bias

Personal bias arises from a certain relationship equation between the deciding authority and the parties, which incline him unfavorably or otherwise on the side of one of the parties before him.

Two main tests of personal bias are: ‘reasonable suspicion’ test- looks to outward appearance, and ‘real likelihood’ test- focuses on the court’s own evaluation of possibilities. In most cases though, they lead to the same result.

Muluki Aain, Chapter on Court Management, Sec. 30- Judge may not hear his or his relative’s case.

(ii) Pecuniary bias

Judicial approach is unanimous and decisive on the point that any financial interest, howsoever small it may be, would vitiate administrative action.

A pecuniary interest will disqualify a judge even though it is established that the judge was not influenced by the interest in reaching a decision.

But the rule sometimes is not applied where the judge has no direct financial interest in the outcome of the case, though having a pecuniary interest.

(iii) Subject-matter bias

Those cases fall within this category where the deciding officer is directly, or otherwise, involved in the subject-matter of the case. Here, mere involvement would not vitiate the administrative action unless there is real likelihood of bias.

In Gullapalli Nagewara Rao v. APSRTC (AIR 1959), the Indian SC quashed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh government to nationalize road transportation on the ground that the Secretary of the Transport Department who gave the hearing was interested in the subject-matter.

In the USA and England, predisposition in favour of a policy in the public interest is not considered as legal bias vitiating administrative action.

(iv) Departmental Bias

The problem of departmental bias is something that is inherent in the administrative process, and if it is not effectively checked, it may negate the very concept of fairness in administrative proceeding.

In Gullapalli Nagewara Rao v. APSRTC (AIR 1959), the Indian SC quashed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh government to nationalize road transportation. One of the grounds for challenge was that the Secretary who gave the hearing was biased, being the person who initiated the scheme and also being the head of the department whose responsibility it was to execute it.

Thereafter the Act was amended and the function of hearing the objection was given to the minister concerned. The Gov. decision was again challenged In Gullapalli Nagewara Rao. However, on this occasion the Supreme Court rejected the challenge on the ground that the minister was not a part of the department in the same manner as the Secretary was.

The problem of department bias also arises in a different context- when the functions of judge and prosecutor are combined in the same department. It is not uncommon to find that the same department which initiates a matter also decides it.

In the US and England, there have partially resolved this issue with the institution of hearing officers and inspectors.

(v) Preconceived notion bias

Bias arising out of preconceived notions is a very delicate problem of administrative law. On the one hand, no judge as a human being is expected to sit as blank sheet of paper, and on the other hand, preconceived notions would vitiate a fair trial.

The decision-maker must remain open to persuasion. This may seem especially unlikely in circumstances where the minister has formulated a policy and then hears representations against that policy. The courts accept that in such circumstances an element of bias must be accepted.

Doctrine of Necessity

Bias would not disqualify an officer from taking an action if no other person is competent to act in his place. This exception is based on the doctrine of necessity.

The doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for the authority to decide, and considerations of judicial propriety must yield.

Cases Relating to Natural Justice
3.1 Rajkumar Adhikari v. HMG[9]

According to court management act no. 30 of Muluki Ain of Nepal it is said that one cannot be a judge in his/her own case and in this case therefore, the decision of the judge failed where judge document and his/her signature was itself in question.

3.2 Jyoti Baniya v. house of representative[10]

In this case a pursuant to the Section 60 of forest act, if there is prosecution and decision maker in same office that is known as official bias. So court held that, second forest officer must file the sue in front of district officer who was appointed as jury with taking opinion of prosecutor as per the mentioned law.

3.3 Yagmurti Banjade V. bagmati special court.[11]

No one can be judge in subject in which he is involved. The judge should do his work on the basis of evidence and he should give judgment which gives logic and argument And should always work in the legal framework and he should be obedient while doing so.

3.4 Babu RamPoudel v. HMG[12]

It is also a landmark case from the point of view of natural justice where the court by issuing the writ of Mandamus ordered HMG to reinstate the petitioner in the same post by quashing the illegal decision of the administration and the right of the petitioner to the hold the post and continue the service was protected by applying the principle of natural justice.

3.5 Iman Singh Gurung v. HMG [13]

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of natural justice and stated that presentation of evidence an opportunity of legal aid and fairness in the legal proceeding are all necessary requirement of Justice. The court further expressed that a citizen has a right to go to the independent and competent court or judicial body for the determination of his basic rights and liabilities and these requirement of a citizen cannot be infringed without essential or justified reason.

[1] 1948, AC 87

[2] J.J.R UPADHAYA, Administrative Law,(Allahbad : Central law Agency, 2001), 162

[3] H.W.R Wade, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW,(Walton street ,Oxford University press, 1993, 6th edition), 489-493

[4] Meengal tea state v. workmen, AIR 1963 S.C

[5] Ram jag singh v. Bihar, AIR 1958 PAT 7

[6] Amalok Chand V. SDO AIR 1962 AS 580

[7] A.K Kraipak V. India, AIR, 1970 SC

[8] D K Khanna V. India, AIR 1970 HP 30

[9] NKP 2055,Decision no. 3495, 33

[10] Supreme court bulletin 2055, no. 17, 2-3

[11] NKP 2027, p 157

[12] NKP 2051

[13] NKP 2049

No man shall be judge in his own case, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time a party or as suitor and also as a judge, or the deciding authority must impartial and with out bias and, This natural justice consists of the rule against bias or interest and is based on two maxim

No man shall be judge in his own cause
Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done

According to the dictionary meaning any thing which tends or may be regarded as to cause such a person to decide a case other wise than on evidence must be held to be biased. So the first requirement of natural justice is that the judge should be impartial and natural and must be free bias. Usually, there are three kinds and are namely as pecuniary Bias, personal bias, departmental bias they all carry the same sense, thought tin different ways that impartiality is the most important ingredient of justice

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.

Constitutionality of Delegated Legislation

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

Constitutionality of delegated legislation means the permissible limits of the constitution of any country within which the legislature, which as the sole repository of law making power, can validly delegate rule making power to other administrative agencies.

Meera Gurung Vs central Immigration Department Themel: Rules 14(4) of Foreign Immigration Rules was declared null andvoid.

Reena Bajracharya and others v. RNAC and others: Rule 16.1.3 of Royal Nepal Airlines Corporations Workers Rule ultra vires.

Balkrishna Neupane vs. Cabinet Secretariat and other: Rule 3.4(a) (b) (c) of Citizenship Rules 2049 was quashed.

Lilamani Poudel v. HMG: Rules 6(2) of Legal Aid Regulation 2055 was declared void as it is inconsistence to Art. 14(5), 11 of the constitution.

Chandra Kant Gyawali and others v. HMG and others: Bye-law 21(1) of the Prison Rules was declared null and void as it violate the Article 11(1)(2)(3) of the Constitution.

Aachuta Prasad Kharel vs. prime Minister, Office of Council of Minister and others: Rule 5(2)(3) of Appointment and Service/ facilities Regulation of Official of Nepal council of Legal Professional, 2055was against the principle of natural justice and Art. 24(9) of the of the constitution.

So, constitutionality test of the delegated legislation is the one of the strong mechanism to control the delegated legislation in context of Nepal. This constitutionality test of the delegated legislation protect the essence of the Constitution i.e. Right to equality and non discrimination. Thus any rule inconsistence with the Constitution will be the matter of judicial review and court declare it void ab initio. Thus, Constitutionality test of the delegated legislation make administrative action accountable towards the citizens and keep within the preview of the Constitution for the protection of the Constitutional rights and the welfare of the country.

Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and any laws, bylaws or the regulation promulgated should be consistent with the constitution. If any laws inconsistent with the constitution is declared null and void to the extent of inconsistency with the constitution. If parliament exceeds its legislative power and makes any law contrary to the constitution provisions and principles, Supreme Court under Article 107(1) and (2) of the constitution has power of judicial review can declare these laws ultra vires