1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the individuals who have played a pivotal role in
the successful completion of this college project. I am immensely grateful to my esteemed
professor,

Dr.ANUJA MISHRA an Assistant Professor at CUSB, SLG, for her invaluable guidance and
unwavering support throughout the journey of creating this project on the topic “Classification of
administrative action”.

I am indebted to my professor for their insightful inputs and constructive feedback, which
significantly contributed to the development and refinement of this project.
Their expertise and mentorship have been instrumental in shaping my understanding of the subject
matter.

I would also like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to my classmates and friends, whose
assistance and encouragement have been invaluable. Their collaborative efforts, meaningful
discussions, and willingness to help have truly enhanced the quality of this project. Furthermore, I
would like to acknowledge and express gratitude to the various resources and references that I
consulted. These resources provided me with a wealth of information and diverse perspectives,
enriching the content and depth of my project.

Last but certainly not least, I am deeply thankful to my family. Their unwavering belief in my
abilities, constant love, and encouragement have been my driving force throughout this project.
Their support has been a constant source of motivation, enabling me to overcome challenges and
reach this significant milestone.

In conclusion, I am sincerely grateful to my professor, classmates, friends, references, and most

importantly, my family, for their invaluable contributions and unwavering support. Their collective
efforts have made this project a reality, and I am honoured to have had the opportunity to work
with such exceptional individuals
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4
2. Need for classification ................................................................................................ 5
3. Legislative, executive & judicial functions and their distinction ........................... 7
 Legislative functions
a. Legislative & judicial functions: Distinction
b. Legislative & administrative functions: Distinction
 Judicial Functions
a. Quasi judicial functions
b. Quasi judicial & judicial functions: Distinction
 Administrative functions
a. Administrative and quasi-judicial functions: distinction
4. Classification of administrative action...................................................................9
4. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 12
5. Bibliography........................................................................................................... 13
 3

TABLE OF CASES

Jayantal Amritlal Shodhan v. F.N. Rana AIR 1964 SC 648

Prentis vs. Atlantic Coastline Co. 53 L Ed 150L 211 US 210 (1908)

Baldev Singh v. State of HP (1987) 2 SCC 510

Sunderjas Bhatija v. Collector 1989 SCR (3) 405

Ram Jawaya V/s State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549

Madhavrao Sciendia v. UOI (1971) 1 SCC 85

A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262; AIR 1970 SC 150.

D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993)3 SCC 259.

Amitabh Shirivastava v. State of MP (1982)1 SCC 514, AIR 1982 SC 827

 4

INTRODUCTION

Administrative action is a comprehensive term and defies exact definition. In modern times the
administrative process as a byproduct of intensive form of government cuts across the traditional
classification of governmental powers and combines into one all the powers which were
traditionally exercised by three different organs of the State.1

The administration is the meeting point of the three types of governmental functions, namely
legislative, judicial and administrative. Usually, the executive performs the reside of all those
functions which are not vested in the other two branches of the government i.e. the legislature
and the judiciary. In the administrative process, all the three functions, which are traditionally
vested in the three different organs of government are telescoped into one single authority.2

There are three organs of Government- legislature, executive and Judiciary. These three organs
essentially perform three classes of governmental functions- Legislative, executive and judicial.
The function of the legislature is to enact law; the executive is to administer the law and the
judiciary is to interpret the law and to declare what the law is. Although the term ‘the Executive’
or ‘the administration’ is employed, there is no implication that the function of the executive are
confined exclusively to those of an executive or administrative character.

Today the executive performs variegated functions, viz. to investigate, to prosecute, to prepare
and to adopt schemes, to issue and cancel licences, etc. (administrative); to make rules,
regulations and bye-laws, to fix prices etc. (legislative); to adjudicate on disputes, to impose fine
and penalty, etc. (judicial).3

In Jayantal Amritlal Shodhan v. F.N. Rana4, the SC observed that it cannot be assumed that the
legislative functions are exclusively performed by the legislature, executive functions by the
executive & judicial functions by the judiciary.5

1
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/132460/9/09_chapter%202.pdf
2
Schwartz, Administrative Law (1976) p. 31.
3
https://www.coursehero.com/file/32167111/Classification-of-administrative-functionspdf/
4
AIR 1964 SC 648
 5

Thus, speaking generally, an administrative action, can be classified into three categories:
1. Quasi-legislative action or rule-making action;
2. Quasi-judicial action or Rule-decision action; and
3. Purely Administrative action or Rule application action.

NEED FOR CLASSIFICATION

 A question arises as to whether the functions performed by the executive authorities are
purely administrative, quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative in character. The answer is very
difficult as there is no precise, scientific and perfect test to distinguish these functions
from one another.

 A further difficulty arises in a case in which a single proceeding may at times combine
various aspects of the three functions. The courts have not been able to formulate any
definite test for the purpose of making such classification. Yet such classification is
essential and inevitable as many consequences flow from it, e.g., if the executive
authority exercises a judicial or quasi-judicial function, it must follow the principles of
natural justice and is amenable to the writ of certiorari or prohibition, but if it is an
administrative, legislative or quasi-legislative function, this is not so.

 If the action of the executive authority is legislative in character, the requirement of

publication, laying on the table etc. should be complied with, but it is not necessary in the
case of a pure administrative action.

 Again, if the function is administrative, delegation is permissible, but if it is judicial, it

cannot be delegated. An exercise of legislative power may not be held invalid on the
ground of unreasonableness, but an administrative decision can be challenged as being

5
Administrative Law, C.K.Takwani, 5th edition, Eastern Book Company publication
 6

unreasonable. It is therefore necessary to determine what type of function administrative

authority performs.6

LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS (PURELY) &

THEIR DISTINCTION

Legislative functions

When any administrative authority exercises the law making power delegated to it by legislature,
it is known as the rule making action of the administration or quasi legislative action. The
legislative functions of the executive consist of making rules, regulations, bye-laws etc.
If a particular function is termed ‘legislative’ or ‘rule making’ rather than ‘judicial’ or
‘adjudication’ it may have substantial effects upon the parties concerned. If the function is
treated as legislative in nature, there is no right to a notice and hearing unless a statute expressly
requires them.

1. Legislative & Judicial Functions: Distinction

In Prentis vs. Atlantic Coastline Co.7 Justice Holmes points out the distinction.
Judicial Legislative
(1) Judicial inquiry investigates, (1) Looks to the future and changes
declared & enforces liabilities and existing condition by making
they stand – on Present or past new rules to be applied to all persons.
facts & under existing Law. That
is purpose and end.

According to Justice Holmes: Main aspect is the element of time.

(i) A rule (Legislative Function) prescribes future pattern of Conduct and creates new rights and
Liabilities.
(ii) Whereas decision (Judicial) determines rights & Liabilities function on the basis of present &
past facts and declares the pre existing rights & Liabilities.

6
Administrative Law, C.K.Takwani, 5th edition, Eastern Book Company publication
7
53 L Ed 150L 211 US 210 (1908)
 7

2. Legislative & Administrative Functions: Distinction

Distinction between Legislative & Administrative Function is very difficult to draw. In Baldev
Singh v. State of HP8, an action of inclusion of certain areas within the municipal corporation
was held to be administrative, while in Sunderjas Bhatija v. Collector9, such action was held to
be legislative.
The power to make rules of general application is a legislative power and the rule is a Legislative
rule. Power to give order in specific cases is an executive power & the order is an executive
action.10
Legislative Act is the creation & promulgation of a general rule of conduct without reference to
particular conduct while administrative act is the application of a general rule to a particular case.

Judicial functions

According to committee on Ministers Power11 – Pure Judicial Function pre supposes an existing
dispute between two or more parties & dispute between two or more parties & it involves four
requisites.
 Presentation of their cause by the parties to the dispute
 If the dispute is question of fact- ascertainment by evidence, arrangements etc.
 If the dispute is question of Law submission of Legal argument by the parties.
 A decision- by finding facts in dispute & application of Law to the facts— ruling upon
disputed question of Law. Thus in a pure judicial function – The aforesaid if requisites
must be present the decision is Judicial decision even though it might have been made by
Minister, Board Exe-authority Adm./ officer, tribunal etc.

1. Quasi-Judicial function
“Quasi” means “not exactly”. Generally an authority is described as quasi-Judicial when it has
some attributes or trappings of judicial functions but not all.

8
(1987) 2 SCC 510
9
1989 SCR (3) 405
10
De’Smith – (J.R.Q. Adm. action — 1995 P. 1006)
11
Report of the committee on ministers’ power, 1932
 8

Griffith and Street - Stated that quasi judicial function stands midway between judicial function
& Adm. Function. Quasi Judicial decision — is nearer to administrative decision in terms of
discretionary element & nearer the judicial decision in terms of procedure & objectivity of its
end product.12

2. Quasi-Judicial & Judicial: Distinction

Quasi-Judicial Judicial

(1) Some Trappings of Court but not
all- obligation to act Judicially
(2) Not lis – inter partes
(3) Lot bound of rules of evidence/
(4) Not bound of precedents
(5) May be party to dispute – but
still decide it.
(1) Obligation to act Judicially
(2) A Lis-inter partes is an essential
characteristics.
(3) Strictly bound procedure
(4) Bound by precedents
(5) Court cannot be Judge in his own can
cause.

Administrative Functions

In Ram Jawaya V/s State of Punjab13, Mukherjee C.J. observed. “It may not be possible to frame
an exhaustive definition of what executive functions means and implies.
Ordinarily the executive power connotes the residence of Govt. function that remains after
Legislative & Judicial functions are taken away.14
Following characteristics are inherent in Administrative functions:
(1) Administrative order generally based on Govt. policy/ expediency.
(2) In administrative decision – no legal obligation to adopt judicial approach—decision—
subjective.
(3) Not bound by the rules of evidence of procedure.

12
Principles of Administrative Law
13
AIR 1955 SC 549
14
[Madhavrao Sciendia v. UOI (1971) 1 SCC 85]
 9

(4) Can take decision in exercise of statutory powers or in the absence of statutory provisions.
(5) Administrative functions – delegated / Sub-delegated
(6) Administrative authority may consider evidence, even use discretion.
(7) Administrative authority is not always bound principle of natural justice unless statutory
provision.
(8) Administrative action may be held invalid on the ground of unreasonableness.
(9) Writs of prohibitions/ certiorari are not always available against administrative actions.

Administrative and Quasi-Judicial functions: Distinction

To appreciate the distinction between administrative & quasi-judicial functions- we have to
understand two expressions.
(i) Lis: In Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas Advani, J. Das observed that- “if a statute
empowers an authority to decide dispute arising out claim by one party, which is opposed by
another party.”
“When there is a lis inter partes and administrative authority is required to decide dispute
between parties & to adjudicate upon the lis. In such cases the authority will be regarded as
acting in quasi-judicial manner.”
(ii) Quasi-lis: Lis decided not between two or more parties but between itself & another party.
(not list inter partes). Thus, where an authority makes an order dismissing employee, canceling
admission to student refusing unfair means, rusticating students, such decisions are extra judicial
in nature.

CLASSIFICATION OF PURE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION

Pure administrative function can be divided into three categories:

(a) Administrative discretion
(b) Ministerial action
(c) Administrative instruction
 10

Administrative discretion:
In Layman’s language, discretion means choosing from amongst the various available
alternatives without reference to nay predetermined criterion, no matter how fanciful that choice
may be.
CJ. Coke says- Discretion is a science or understanding to discern between falsity and truth,
between right and wrong and not to do according to will and private affection.
The problem of administrative discretion is complex. It is true that in any intensive form of
government cannot function without the exercise of some discretion by the officials. It is
necessary not only for individualization of the administrative power but also because it is
humanly impossible to lay down a rule for every conceivable eventuality in the complex art of
modern government. But it is equally true that absolute discretion is a ruthless master.

Ministerial action:
Ministerial function is that function of agency which is taken as a matter of duty imposed upon it
by the law devoid of any discretion or judgment. Therefore, a ministerial action involves the
performance of a definite duty I respect of which there is no choice, no wish and no freedom.
Here, the high authority dictates and lower authority carries out. Collection of revenue may be
one such ministerial action.
When an administrative agency is acting ministerially it has no power to consult its own wishes
but when it is acting administratively its standards are subjective and it follows its own wishes.

Administrative instruction:
Administrative instruction means power to issue instruction flow from the general executive
power of the administration. ‘Administrative instruction’ is a most efficacious technique for
achieving some kind of uniformity in administrative discretion and to manipulate in an area
which is new and dynamic. These instructions also give a desired flexibility to the administration
devoid of technicalities of the rule-making process.
The instructions which are generally issued not under any statutory authority but under the
general power of administration are considered as directory and hence are unenforceable not
having the force of law.
 11

The Hon’ble Court found the power exercised by the Selection Board as an administrative one
and tested the validity of the selections on that basis. It held that the concept of rule of law would
lose its importance if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of
discharging their functions in a fair and just manner. Also, it is a must to charge administrative
authorities with the duty of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner in a Welfare
State like India, where the jurisdiction of the administrative bodies is increasing at a rapid rate.17
In this case the Supreme Court held that though the action of making selection for government
service is administrative, yet the selection committee is under a duty to act judicially. The Court
observed that the dividing line between an administrative power and quasi-judiciai power is quite
thin and being gradually obliterated.18

CONCLUSION: Therefore what emerges from this case is that although the Courts are making
distinctions between the Quasi-Judicial and Administrative powers but at the same time there is
one common element of fair procedure in both the cases which can be referred to as the ‘duty to
act fairly’. This duty arises from the same general principles, as do the rules of natural justice.19

1. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.20

The Supreme Court further observed that the distinction between quasi-judicial and
administrative action which had become thin is now totally eclipsed and obliterated.

2. Amitabh Shirivastava v. State of M.P.21

The court allowed the enforceability of administrative instructions even in view of the fact that
they modified statutory rules. In the instant case, the state Government had prescribed certain
qualifying marks by statutory rules for admission to medical colleges in the state. The petitioner
did not qualify for admission on the basis of these rules. Subsequently, the qualifying percentage
of marks was lowered by an executive order, on the basis of which the petitioner became eligible
for admission.

17
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1162/A.K-Kraipak-v.-Union-of-India.html
18
Ibid.
19
ibid
20
(1993)3 SCC 259.
21
(1982)1 SCC 514 i AIR 1982 SC 827
 12

CONCLUSION

The literature of classification of administrative action is rather confused. To solve this problem,
we only need to keep a few necessary classifications in terms of function, while bringing other
large numbers of classifications into relevant principles introduction and discussion. In the sense
of connotation of administrative action, notion reconstruction is unnecessary for the thoroughly
overhauling can well meet the need. That is, defining administrative action as the function of
administrative power and to classify it level by level.

In view of the system construction of administrative law, defining scope of administrative

remedies is not fully decided by the classification of administrative action. So there is no need to
unduly attack the division of general administrative action and specific administrative action.
Such division mainly serves to build up the self-discipline system of legal administration.
Moreover, from the perspectives of drawing Administrative Procedural Act and gathering
statistics of administrative acts, it's also necessary to define administrative action as the function
of administrative power and to classify it level by level.

Administrative law is the law governing the Executive, to regulate its functioning and protect the
common citizenry from any abuse of power exercised by the Executive or any of its
instrumentalities. It is a new branch of law which has evolved with time and shall continue to
evolve as per the changing needs of the society. The aim of administrative law is not to take
away the discretionary powers of the Executive but to bring them in consonance with the ‘Rule
of law’.
 13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Indian Administrative Law by M.P. Jain.

2. Administrative Law by Wade and Phillips.
3. Lectures on Administrative Law by Justice C.K. Takwani.
4. Administrative Law by I.P. Massey.
5. Constitutional and Administrative Law by S.A. De Smith.

WEBSITES

1. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1162/A.K-Kraipak-v.-Union-of-India.html
2. http://aclawresearch.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-is-classification-of-pure.html
3. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1162/A.K-Kraipak-v.-Union-of-India.html
4. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/132460/9/09_chapter%202.pdf
5. https://www.coursehero.com/file/32167111/Classification-of-administrative-functionspdf/