SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)

(Established under section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)

Re-Accredited by NACC with ‘A’ Grade
______________________________________________________________________________
Institute Name: (0102) SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
Programme: (010223 & 010224) BALLB BBA LLB
Batch: (2014-19, 2015-20, 2016-21, 2017-22, 2018-23)
Semester: V
Course: Administrative Law
Course Code: 0102230504, 0102240504

Date: 22/06/2021 Maximum Marks: 60

Day: Tuesday Time: 14:00 – 16:30
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Instructions:
1) All Questions are Compulsory.
2) Type the answers in a word file.
3) The answer must be original. If it is found that the answer is copied from any source then
necessary action will be taken as per examination rules.

Q.1. (a) In a case of Court Martial, the Chief of Army staff and Central Government confined
findings and sentence recorded by General Court Martial without mentioning the reason. Discuss
with suitable case. (10 Marks ) (CO 3, 5)

(b) Passport of A was impounded by Passport Authority without providing any opportunity of
being heard. Whether post-decisional hearing is constitutional? Discuss. (10 Marks ) (CO 3, 5)

OR

Q.1. (a) Normally government used to call for tenders from private printers to print and publish text
books for primary schools. But in 2018, government issued a notification regarding printing of
text books by government press. Private publishers challenged the notification. Decide.
(10 Marks ) (CO2, 3, 5)

(b) Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam has statutory powers to demolish any building without any notice if
it has been constructed without any prior permission. X’s house has been constructed without
permission. The authorities demolished X’s house. Decide. (10 Marks ) (CO2, 3, 5)

Q.2. In the State of Pradesh, sugarcane was produced by the sugar mills through the ‘hydraulic process'
and by the power crushers through the 'open pan processes. Both the mills as also the crushers
drew their raw material, namely sugarcane from sugarcane growers. In order to facilitate
production by the sugar mills, most of which were controlled by the State, reserved area of the
fields growing sugarcane was fixed throughout the State.
With a view (Objective) to removing nation-wide shortage of sugar, enhancing sugar
production and achieving an equitable distribution of the commodity so as to make it available
to consumers at reasonable rates, the Cane Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred
under clause (8) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 issued a notification dated 9th October,
1980 which directed that no power crusher other than vertical power crushers manufacturing gur
or rab from sugarcane grown on their own fields or a Khandsari unit or any agent of such owner
in the reserved area of a mill could be worked until December 1, 1980.
 Balwant kumar and others who were owners of power crushers of Khandsari units and had
taken out regular licences under the Uttar Pradesh Khandsari Sugar Manufacturers Licensing
Order 1967, assailed the notification which limited the ban to work power crushers for a period
of one month and a half i.e. from October 9. 1980 to December 1, 1980 in writ petitions to this
Court. Balwant Kumar and others have moved before court challenging the notification dated 9 th
October, 1980 saying, the impugned Notification goes against the very spirit and object of the
Act of 1955 and in fact, frustrates the equal distribution and production of sugar which was the
objective of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. Comment on the case with suitable precedents.
(20 Marks) (CO2, 4 &5)

OR

Q.2. In 2011, the Bhatanagar Metropolitan Board was formed under Bhatanagar Town and Country
Planning Act, 1982. The Bhatanagar Metropolitan Board was granted with the power to prepare
Development Plans for Bhatanagar. Such plans are further required to be published and submitted
for approval from the State Government. The State Government shall make such modifications as
it deems fit and return the plan to the board for calling objections from the residents. The
Bhatanagar Metropolitan Board Rules, 2011 prescribes that the publication shall be made by
making a copy of the Plan available for inspection thereby displaying a notice at the office of the
Board and at such other places as may be deemed necessary by the Planning Authority. The
Board is also required to publish the final plan in the Official Gazette and in one or more
newspapers.
A draft plan is placed before the State Government. The State Government approved the draft
with no alteration and hence the same is published in the official gazette of Bhatanagar on
22.11.2012 for inviting objections. As many as 350 representations are made. All are considered
and final version of the Plan is published in two newspapers.
Sundar Ram was a resident of the area opposing implementation of the plan. He challenged the
matter in the court of law saying that publication in the Official Gazette was mandatory and hence
the plan becomes ineffective. The State relied upon “Omnibus Curative Clause’ of the parent Act.
Section 82 of the parent Act lays down:
“No act done or proceeding taken under this Act shall be questioned on the ground merely of the
failure to fulfil procedural requirement, where no substantial injustice has resulted from such
failure; or any omission, defect or irregularity not affecting the merits of the case.”
Decide the case as a Judge with a specific comment on validity of “Omnibus Curative Clause’.
Elaborate your answer on the basis of suitable precedents. (20 Marks) (CO2, 4 &5)

Q.3. Kansraj is a state in Sayunktrastra. Section 3 of Kansraj Slum Areas (Improvement and
Clearance) Act, 1957 allows issue of notification to declare a certain area as ‘slum area’. Mehula
is a metropolitan city of Kansraj state. The same Act also provides power to issue notification for
clearing designated ‘slum area’. Notification No.HMA59MCS76 dated 17.01.1960 was issued by
Kansraj Government declaring an extent of one acre in the city of Mehula, as ‘slum area.’ After
considering the objections, another notification dated 30.12.1960 was issued under section 11(1)
of the Act declaring the entire land as ‘slum clearance area.’ However, on January 20, 1961, the
Government issued notification under section 3 (1) cancelling earlier notification dated
30.12.1960 and re-declared ‘slum clearance area’ which was very small compared to previously
declared area. The residents of the previously declared area challenged the notification dated 20 th
January, 1961 on the ground violation of Article 14 of the constitution inasmuch as the slum
dwellers affected by the government’s action were not given an opportunity of being heard.
Analyze the above situation in the light of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
(20 Marks) (CO1,3,4)

OR
Q.3. Regulation of Pharmaceutical Undertakings Act had the following provisions for disciplinary
proceedings:
Section 15: “The Vice President of the undertaking shall be the ex officio presiding officer of the
Disciplinary Committee constituted under this Act.”
Section 20: “The Committee of Appeals constituted under this Act shall comprise of the senior-
most administrative officers of the undertaking, and/or, such other officers of reputed standing as
the Board of Directors of the undertaking deems suitable for the purpose.”
A doctor filed complaint against a sales executive of Holistic Pharmaceuticals Ltd., a government
undertaking, on the ground of latter’s unethical practices while canvassing products to the doctor.
It is on record that the sales executive was recently promoted on the basis of a recommendation
report of the Vice President of Holistic Pharmaceuticals. The Disciplinary Committee held the
sales executive liable and recommended punishment. These findings of the Disciplinary
Committee were overturned in appeal. The Committee of Appeals consisted of three members,
and the Vice-President of Holistic Pharmaceuticals was one of its members. The doctor
challenged the decision of the appellate authority.
Evaluate the fact situations by identifying the relevant principles of administrative law. Support
your answer with legal precedents, if applicable. (20 Marks) (CO 2, 4 &5)