Judicial Control

• Judicial Review Upholds Rule of Law.

• Courts- DL- exercised within extent of power
delegated & acc. To Constitution.
• Judicial Review- effective- courts not merely
recommend but can strike down- rule if it ultra-
vires enabling act/ Constitution.
• A. 13(3)(a)- includes entire subordinate Legislation.
• A. 13(2)- State shall make no law which takes away
the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution.
 DL held invalid on Grounds:
1. That the enabling Act is ultra-vires the
Constitution.
 In Re Delhi Laws Act.
 Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka
Issue was related to ‘Capitation Fee’.
Govt.- given power to fix capitation fee but S.C held-
it is an essential function- can’t be delegated.
Delegation- amounts to excessive delegation.
 DL held invalid on Grounds:
2. The Administrative Legislation is ultra-vires the Constitution.
 Dwarka Prasad v. State of U.P.
S.3- Essential Supplies Temporary Power Act, 1946.
S.3(1)- no one carry on business in coal except under a license.
R. 3(2)(b)- State Coal Controller can exempt any person from license
requirement.
Held- R. 3(2)(b) ultra-vires A.19(1)(g)- places unreasonable restriction by giving
arbitrary powers to executive in granting exemptions.
 Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thazhilali Union v. State of Kerala
State- obligatory- every toddy shop owner has to employ one retrenched
worker.
Held- violative of A. 19(1)(g) & A.14 of Constitution.
Court- “take it or leave it” condition imposed by admin. Rule is arbitrary.
 DL held invalid on Grounds:
3. That the Administrative Legislation is ultra-vires the enabling Act.
I. That it is excess of the power conferred by the enabling Act.
 Dwarka Nath v. Municipal Corporation.
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954- auth. C.G U/s. 23(1)-
rules- packaging & labeling of any article of food- view- prevent
public from being deceived as to quantity/quality of Article.
R.32- Govt.-shall be specified on every label name & business address
of manufacturer, batch no./ code no. either in Hindi or English.
Mohan Ghee Company- action initiated against this company because
on ghee tins only “Mohan Ghee laboratories, Delhi-5 was written.
Argued- requirements of address under R.32- beyond power of
enabling Act- restricted to Quantity/Quality.
S.C- agreed with Contention.
 Case Law
General officer Commanding-in-chief v. Subhash
Chandra Yadav
• Cantonment Acts, 1924- empowered to C.G.- rules for
servants of Board- tenure of office, salaries, allowances,
provident Fund, pension, gratuities, leave of absence &
other service condition.
• Rules framed by C.G- transfer of servants from one board
to another.
• S.C- quashed admin. Rules- ground- in excess of power
delegated by Present Act.
• To determine whether DL is in excess of power conferred
by Parent Act- one has to see specific provisions of Act.
• If Rules- rational nexus- object/purpose of Act, then
Rules- valid & can’t be challenged in Court of Law.
 DL held invalid on Grounds:
ii. That it is in conflict with the enabling Act.
 D.T.U. v. B.B.L Hajelay
• Delhi Corporation Act, 1957
• S.92(1)- all provisions drawing salary less than 350 P.M-
appointed by Gen. Manager of Delhi Transport Undertaking.
• S.95- no person can be dismissed by an auth. subordinate to
appointing auth.
• G.M- rule-delegate power to Asst. Gen. Manager.
• Driver- salary less than 350 P.M- dismissed by AGM.
• Challenged- validity of Rule- in direct conflict with Provision of
Act.
• S.C- declared- rule invalid- provision of enabling Act can’t be
infringed by any admin. Rule/regulation.
 Case Law
Kunj Beharilal v. State of H.P.
• H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
• Power delegated to State Govt.- rules & carrying out
the purpose of Act.
• S.5- exempted “Tea Estates & Land Subservient
thereto” from operation of Act.
• Rule framed by State Govt. had put a ban on transfer
of land Subservient to tea estates.
• Held- rules ultra-vires enabling Act. S.C- admin. Auth.
can’t bring within the net of rules what has been
excluded by the Act itself.
 DL held invalid on Grounds:
iii. That it is in conflict with the prescribed procedure of enabling Act.
 Banwarilal Agarwalla v. State of Bihar
• “Mines Act, 1952”- obligatory- C.G has to consult mining Board
before making rules.
• S.C- rules framed by C.G without consulting mining Board- invalid.
Rules- ultra-vires as C.G not followed procedure est. by enabling
Act.
 District Collector, Chittoor v. Chittor Dist. Groundnuts Traders Assn.
• S.3- C.G empowered State Govt.- make necessary orders with prior
permission of C.G.
• Orders issued without prior agreement approval of C.G.
• orders ultra-vires procedure of Act.
 DL held invalid on Grounds:
iv. That it is unreasonableness, arbitrary &
discriminatory.
• Law not settled- court invalidate an admin. Rule on
this ground.
• Doctrine of unreasonableness of DL- A.14.
• Case Laws
 Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India.
 State of Maharashtra v. Raj Kumar.
 Air India v. Nargesh Mishra.
 State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale.
 DL held invalid on Grounds:
v. That it is mala-fide
• Acc. To Hindustan Times, April 28, 1972.
• The Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940- empowers Govt. to prescribe
standards of quality of Drugs & Cosmetics.
• R. 150- govt.- required manufacturers of eau de cologne to add 1% of
diethylphthalate, a poisonous substance to render product unpotable.
• Govt.- prohibition policy- cologne is kind of perfume made from
alcohol.
• Held- Bombay H.C- rule invalid- Govt. can’t enforce its prohibition
policy in guise of prescribing standards.
• Sole case in India- where power of Judicial Review- exercised on
ground of bad faith.
 DL held invalid on Grounds:
vi. That it encroaches upon the rights of private
citizens derived from common Law in the
absence of an express auth. in enabling Act.
 Sophy Kelly v. State of Maharashtra.
vii. That in conflicts with the terms of some
other Statute.
 Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v.
State of Kerala
 DL held invalid on Grounds:
viii. Effect of an Ultra-vires Administrative
Legislation.
 Bar Council of India v. Surjeet Singh
 Marathwada University v. Sheshrao.
ix. Waiver of the Rule
 State of Kerala v. K. Prasad.
x. Vagueness.