Dr.

Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law

University, Lucknow
Session-2021-22

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

QUASI-JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS

UNDER THE SUPERVISION SUBMITTED BY

Dr. Manoj Kumar Sakshi Singh Barfal

Assistant professor (Law) Enrollment no-190101122
RMLNLU B.A.LLB. (Hons.)

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The successful completion of this project is the result of constant and rigorous hard work of weeks,
browsing through the different websites and consulting various books of renowned authors and
reading different journals by eminent scholars of related subject.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my Subject professor Dr. Manoj Kumar who was
always there to guide me with the project outlines and whose effective sense of understanding of
the subject and imparting the same to me goes a long way down to the eventual compilation of
the project.

I would also like to thank other college staff, notably the print out department and my friends who
were ever present. Eventually I would also like to thank my parents whose constant blessing is
indispensable for any activity I undertake.

Mistakes have the habit of creeping in unknowingly into the human nature but I sincerely hope
that the Teachers would find this Project acknowledgeable in every way.

Sakshi Singh Barfal

2
 Contents
Page No.

1. Introduction..................................................................................... 4
2. Meaning of Quasi-Judicial Institutions ....................................... 5
3. Reasons and Growth of Quasi-Judicial Institutions ................. 7
4. Powers of Quasi-Judicial Institutions .......................................... 9
5. Quasi-Judicial Functions and Natural Justice ......................... 10
6. Limits of Quasi Judicial Functions ............................................. 13
7. Conclusion ...................................................................................... 14
8. Bibliography. ..................................................................................15

3
1. INTRODUCTION:
Administrative action is a comprehensive term and defies exact definition. In modern times
the administrative process is a by-product of intensive form of government and 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. Therefore, there is
general agreement among the writers on administrative law that any attempt of classifying
administrative functions or any conceptual basis is not only impossible but also futile. Even
then a student of administrative law is compelled to delve into field of classification because
the present-day law especially relating to judicial review freely employs conceptual
classification of administrative action. Thus, speaking generally, an administrative action can
be classified into four categories:
i) Rule-making action or quasi-legislative action- which in administrative law parlance is
known as Delegated Legislation. Legislation might be defined as the making of general rules
to govern future conduct (Public Acts of the Parliament).
ii) Rule-decision action or quasi-judicial action- power which is generally characterized as
quasi-judicial or adjudicative power. Administration is considerably more difficult to define.
It may be taken or mean the application of general rules to particular cases by the making of
some order or some decision or by performing some action.
iii) Rule-application action or administrative action- which is non-legislative and non-
adjudicative in nature. The central case of judicial function is the final and binding resolution
of disputes as to facts, or as to the existences or the scope of legal rights or duties, by means
of finding facts deciding what the law is and applying the law to the facts.
(iv) Ministerial action – A further distillate of administrative action is ministerial action.
Ministerial action is that action of the administrative agency, which is taken as matter of duty
imposed upon it by the law devoid of any discretion or judgment. Therefore, a ministerial
action involves the performance of a definitive duty in respect of which there is no choice.
Collection of revenue may be one such ministerial action.

2. MEANING OF QUASI-JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS:

A quasi-judicial body is an organisation or individual on which powers resembling to that of
court of law of judge have been conferred in order to adjudicate and decided upon a situation
and impose penalty upon the guilty or regulate the conduct of individual or entity. A quasi-
judicial agency has also been defined as “an organ of government, other than a court or

4
legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule-
making. Quasi Judicial proceedings seem judicial but that are conducted by a person other
than a judge - or at least not in his or her judicial capacity.1
Essentially quasi-judicial body is one which exercises a discretion that is essentially judicial
in character but is not a tribunal within the judicial branch of government and is not a court
exercising judicial power in constitutional sense.
QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION:
“Quasi- Judicial” is the appellation applied when an administrative body discharges an
adjudicatory/judicial function. The dictionary meaning of the word “quasi” is “not exactly”.
A quasi- judicial act is “just is between a judicial and administrative function”.
Instances where it may be said that it is a Quasi- Judicial Action-
When there is a dispute/contest/challenge (lis) between two contending parties, and the
authority adjudicates upon the rights of the parties, the authority acts is a quasi-judicial
manner. However, this is not necessary. Even in the absence of lis can there be authority
acting in a quasi- judicial manner.
• The view taken in Ridge v. Baldwin2 (approved by the Supreme Court of India in
Maneka Gandhi3). Here, it was held that the duty to act judicially may arise from the
very nature of the function performed by the authority.
• As per State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal4, it was observed that the
primary test of determining that an authority is quasi- judicial is whether the authority
has any express duty to act judicially in arriving at the decision. This view, submitted
by a two judge bench, is not correct.
• Sukhlal Sen5 is another instance where Ridge v. Baldwin was followed. Here, MP
High Court considered the nature of function of a licensing authority, in cancelling
occupational and trading license. The Court traced the development of law on this
issue in England as well as in USA and India. It was held that the nature of duty, to
determine whether the licensee has committed any breach of terms and conditions of
his license and whether for that reason license should be cancelled, imposes upon the
authority the duty to act judicially and to comply with principles of natural justice.

1
Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
2
1964 AC 40: (1963) All ER 66
3
AIR 1978 SC 597
4
AIR 1999 SC 1786 p. 1791
5
Sukhlal Sen v. Collector Satna, 1969 MPLJ 516

5
 The Supreme Court here considered the nature of action of authorities under the
Customs Act, 1962 and held that statutory authorities under the Act perform quasi-
judicial function. Therefore, principles of Natural Justice were required to be
complied before any order was passed.
In a similar manner, action of authority under the FEMA, 1973, functions of Registrar
under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 to rectify register, function of
Regional Transport Authority under Motor Vehicles act, 1988, have been held to be
quasi- judicial.
• In Varsha Plastic Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India6 the court held that the authority
exercising quasi-judicial power is not bound by guidelines issued by a higher
authority and has to take an independent view.
• On whether a quasi-judicial authority can review its decision once a final decision is
taken by it, it was held in SBI v. S. N Goyal7 that it was not open for a quasi judicial
authority to do so unless relevant statute or statutory rules permit such review. An
Enquiry officer is a Quasi- Judicial Authority. Therefore, a departmental proceeding
is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the enquiry officer performs a Quasi-Judicial
Function.
• The Supreme Court in Indian National Congress8 laid down the following principles
to characterise the function of the authority as quasi-judicial: “Where –
(a) a statutory authority empowered under a statute to do any act
(b) which would prejudicially affect the subject
(c) although there is no lis or two contending parties and the contest is between the
authority and the subject, and
(d) the statutory authority is required to act judicially under the stature, the decision of
the said authority is quasi- judicial.”
As a comment in the above formulation that the Court gave, the it need to be said that
it is not necessary for the statute to say expressly that the authority is required to act
‘judicially’ there under. Such a duty is implied in most of the cases by the courts.
In conclusion, the above propositions to what is a quasi-judicial authority present two
important incidents of a quasi- judicial function:
(1) The concerned authority has to observe principles of natural justice.

6
(2009) 3 SCC 365
7
(2008) 8 SCC 92
8
Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare, AIR 2002 SC 2158

6
(2) Once a decision has been taken by the concerned authority, it cannot review its own
decision unless it has statutory authority to do so.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN QUASI-JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
FUNCTIONS:
The one distinction that would seem to be workable between judicial and administrative
functions is that a quasi-judicial decision is made according to the law whereas an
administrative decision is made according to the administrative policy. In modest words,
quasi-judicial function is an administrative function, which the law requires to be exercised as
it were, in some respects, a judicial function.
A judge, in quasi-judicial function, tries to find out the correct solution according to the legal
rules that apply. On the other hand, an administrator attempts to find the most expedient and
desirable solution in the interest of public.
The Supreme Court clearly held in Chandra Bhavan And Lodging Banglore v State of
Mysore that it is not necessary to classify an action of the administrative authority as quasi-
judicial or administrative because the administrative authority is bound to follow the
principles of natural justice in any case. In this case, the question was whether the power to
fix a minimum wage under the minimum wages Act is quasi- judicial or administrative.
Elaborating the law further, the court identified three characteristics of quasi-judicial action :
(1) it is in the substances a determination upon investigation of a question by the application
of an objective standard to facts found in the light of pre-existing rules (2) it declares rights
and imposes upon parties obligation affecting their civil rights and imposes upon parties
obligation their civil rights : (3) that the investigation is the subjects to certain procedures
attributes contemplating facts and if the disputes to be on question of law on the presentation
of legal argument, and a decision resulting in the disposal of the matter on findings on those
question of law and facts.

3. REASONS AND GROWTH OF QUASI-JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS:

A significant aspect of the expansion of the Adjudication in the modern era is the power of
adjudication by Administrative authorities. Normally, the function of Adjudicating upon
disputes between two individuals or between the state and an individual is vested in the
courts and our Constitution has made ample provisions for a well-regulated hierarchy of

7
judicial system of Supreme Court of India vide Part V chapter IV9, that of High Courts vide
Part VI chapter V10 and of Subordinate Judiciary vide Part VI chapter VI. 11 But side by side
with the courts, innumerable administrative bodies have sprung up to carry on the functions
of adjudication in a variety of situations. The tendency or practice of vesting adjudicatory
functions in persons, bodies or institutions is becoming increasingly pronounced with the
passage of time.
• The main causes for the evolution of the system of adjudication outside the courts are
practically the same as have led to the emergence of the delegated legislation viz.
extension of governmental operations, activities and responsibilities because of socio-
economic changes which are taking place in the country. This in turn, has
necessitated the development of the technique of administrative adjudication which
may better respond to social needs and requirements than the elaborate and costly
decision through court litigation.12
• The courts are already faced with a large backlog of cases and if the adjudications
were also entrusted to the courts, it will slow down the administrative process because
of long delays, which usually occur in the court proceedings. It is proverbial that an
ordinary judicial proceeding is dilatory as well as expensive. The effective
implementation of new policies often demands speedy, cheap and decentralisation,
determination, with which administrative adjudication can only cope with.
• Another important reason for the new development is that while the courts are
accustomed to deal with the cases primarily according to law, exigencies of the
modern administration often make it incumbent that some types of controversies be
disposed of by applying not merely law, pure and simple but considerations of policy
as well, for example, what is in the public interest what is expedient or what is
reasonable.13
It is only adjudication outside the ordinary judicial system, which can take care of
such matters. Thus technical problems or questions requiring special expertise may
have to be better left to be determined by specialised adjudicatory bodies than courts.
For an example under The Customs Tariff Act 1975 the proper determination of the
9
Articles 124-147 of the Constitution of India, for reference see P.M.Bakshi’s Constitution of India Seventh
Edition, 2006, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Delhi., p 123-139
10
Articles 214-232
11
Articles 233-237
12
C.K. Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law, 4th ed., Eastern Book Company, 2011, 159.

13
I.P. Massy, Administrative Law, 7th Edn, 48-60

8
 question as to under what entry of the schedule to the statute, a particular commodity
falls for imposing Customs duty or confiscation requires knowledge of science and
technology besides experience. Perhaps because of the lack of such expert knowledge,
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that due deference is required to be
given to the executive adopted an interpretation which the reasonable person could
adopt or which was perverse.14 Moreover the adjudication by bodies other than courts
is cheap, accessible, expeditious, free from technicalities and flexible.15

4. POWERS AND GROWTH OF QUASI-JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS:

Generally, courts of law have the authority to decide controversies that affect individual
rights. One major exception to this norm is power of quasi-judicial authorities such as boards,
tribunals or organisations to make decisions concerning the rights of parties. It is a quasi-
judicial body as its function is judicial, resembling those of a court of law, and in its
constitution, it is a part of the executive wing of the government, charged with the
supervision and regulation of a particular area of governmental concern. It is not bound by
technical rules of evidence and is able remedy a situation or imposes penalties.
The genesis of tribunals in India can be traced to Article 323B of the Constitution of India,
the objective of which was to create tribunals, which could reduce the burden of High Courts
and the Supreme Court of India and dispose disputes with efficacy. The Article empowers the
‘appropriate legislature’ of the state and central government to establish tribunals for the
purpose of trying or adjudicating disputes, complaints or offences with respect to all or any of
the matters specified relating to, among others, levy. Assessment, collection and enforcement
of any tax, foreign exchange, import-export matters, production, procurement or supply and
distribution of food stuffs declared to be essential goods.
The concept is to create a unique system to face challenge of the efficient administration of
justice. With more developed infrastructure, issues evolve regarding adjudication of rights
vis-a-vis issues of development requiring specialised knowledge and expertise which are not
available with regular courts. The specialised tribunals with appropriately qualified members
are therefore able to dispose of matters with adeptness.16

14
Collector of Customs v. Ganga Setty, AIR 1963, SC, p 1319
15
Law Commission of India, 162nd Report, Review of functioning of Central Administrative Tribunal; Customs,
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and Income Tax Act Appellate Tribunal, p 12
16
C.K. Thakkar, Administrative law, Eastern Book Company, chap. 3 and 9

9
Provision of separate procedures and the relaxation of rules of limitation and recording of
evidence give flexibility to these tribunals when compared to the rigours of the court. they
have been vested with the powers of a court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a
suit in respect of matters relating to discovery and inspection of documents of other material
object producible as evidence, enforcing the evidence of witnesses, compelling the
production of documents or other material objects producible as evidence and impounding
the same, but are not strictly bound by the rules of law. For effective enforcement of their
orders, they also have the power to punish for their contempt.17
Quasi-Judicial is regarded more with the decisions from administrative agencies exercising
adjudicating powers. The reason seems to be since the administrative decision-making is also
a by-product of intensive form of government, the traditional judicial system cannot give to
the people that quantity and quality of justice which is required in a welfare state. There are
certain powers to perform acts which are administrative in nature but incidentally require
some judicial control. On the basis of definition of quasi-judicial action, the following
functions of the administrative have been held to be quasi-judicial functions:
1. Disciplinary proceedings against student
2. Disciplinary proceedings against an employee for misconduct
3. Confiscation of goods under the Sea Customs Act, 1878
4. Determination of statutory disputes
5. Determination of citizenship
6. Forfeitures of pensions and gratuity
7. Grant of permit by regional transport authority
8. Refusal to grant ‘no objection certificate’ under the Bombay Cinemas (Regulations) Act,
1953
10. Authority granting or refusing permission for retrenchment
11. Grant of permit by Regional Transport Authority

5. QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AND NATURAL JUSTICE:

The rules of natural justice are presumed to apply to bodies entrusted with judicial or quasi-
judicial bodies. There is no such presumption with regards to bodies performing
administrative functions. Decisions, which are purely administrative, stand on a wholly

17
(1997)3 SCC 261

10
different footing from judicial as well as quasi-judicial functions. Identifying the rules of
natural justice in the varied circumstances which confront administrative decision makers,
has proven to be a formidable task for such bodies themselves as well as the Courts charged
with supervising and controlling their decisions. Administrative authorities are being
entrusted with the “duty to act fairly” in arriving at decisions which may have a serious
adverse effects on someone’s rights, interests or status.
Keeping in mind the above-made observations, the author has tried to analyze whether there
exists any dividing line between quasi-judicial and administrative actions and the
applicability of rules of natural justice to Administrative Actions through various cases.
• In A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India18, Supreme Court held “It is necessary to
understand the scope of principles of natural justice. In a phrase it can be described as
“judicial fairness in decision making” and its main aim is to secure justice or prevent
miscarriage of justice. It is a branch of public law and is held to be a very formidable
weapon that can be wielded to secure justice. The definition of the term ‘natural
justice’ is difficult to be given but its essential characteristics can be enumerated in
two maxims namely- (i) audi alteram partem and (ii) nemo judex in causa sua .
The first maxim literally meaning ‘hear the other side’ provides that before taking a
decision other party must be heard. De Smith says- “No proposition can be more
clearly established than that a man cannot incur the loss of liberty or property until he
has a fair opportunity of answering the case against him”.
The second phrase literally means that “No man shall be a judge in his own cause”.
This maxim ensures that the adjudicator must not have any interest or bias in the case
which he is deciding. As the famous saying goes “justice should not only be done but
must be seen to have been done” In case of a judicial body, the independence and
impartiality of the judge is an absolute condition, because without these qualities the
public confidence which is their real strength would weaken.
In the opinion of the Apex Court, a precondition to decide for or against one party
without proper regard to the true merits is bias. Bias can be of three type’s i.e.
personal bias, pecuniary bias or official bias. In the cases of bias what the aggrieved
party has to prove is the likelihood of bias and not the real existence of the same.
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

22
AIR 1967 SC 1269

11
 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. In the
words of Hegde, J.-
“The requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but to act justly and fairly
and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The procedures which are considered inherent in
the exercise of a judicial power are merely those which facilitate if not ensure a just
and fair decision.”
It further observed that the dividing line between an administrative power and quasi-
judicial power is being gradually obliterated.
• The Court in Manak lal v. Dr. Prem Chand19 held, “the test is not whether in fact, a
bias has affected the judgement, the test always is and must be whether a litigant
could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might
have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal.
• In the case of State of U.P v. Mohammed Nooh20, the officer who held departmental
inquiry and passed the order, himself gave evidence and thus acted as prosecutor and
the judge. Das C.J delivering the majority judgement said that the rules of natural
justice were grossly violated.
• Similarly, in the case of Rattan Lal v. Managing Committee21, x was a witness as well
as one of the three members of an inquiry committee against Rattanlal. The Court set
aside the dismissal order of Rattanlal on the ground that the proceedings were vitiated
because of bias of one of the members.
• Also, in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss)Binapani Dei22 , Shah, J. speaking for
the Court, dealing with an enquiry made as regards the correct age of a government
servant observed thus-
“We think that such an enquiry and decision were contrary to the basic concept of
justice and cannot have any value. It is true that the order is administrative in
character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences as

19
Manak lal v. Dr. Prem Chand AIR 1957 SC 425
20
AIR 1958 SC 86
21
AIR 1993 SC 2155
22
AIR 1967 SC 1269

12
 already stated, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after
informing the first respondent of the case of the State…Often times it is not easy to
draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries.
Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered
as quasi judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-
judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an
administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-
judicial enquiry.”
• In Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala23, the Court observed that the
rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice
should apply to a given case must be depend to a great extent on the facts and
circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held
and the constitution of the tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose.
Whenever a complaint is made before a Court that some principle of natural justice
had been contravened the Court has to decide whether the observance of that was
necessary for just decisions on the facts of that case.

6. LIMITS Of QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY:

Too much emphasis on administrative justice has its own dangers therefore this is such a
course/ path that require lot of discretion and caution.
• There is a great value in an independent judiciary administering the law in an open
court. There cannot be the same degree of independence in case of a member of
administrative body. The judge has the legal training, decides cases according to
accepted tenets of law, gives reasons for the decisions, follows precedents and
publishes his decisions. There is an examination-in-chief, cross-examination and legal
representations of both the parties in a court of law. These important features of the
legal system are not always to be found in the system of administrative adjudication.
• There are multifarious adjudicatory bodies outside the courts. In fact no one knows
for sure as to how many of these exist as no comprehensive study of these bodies has
yet been attempted in India.

22
AIR 1967 SC 1269

13
 • The methods of procedure and of giving decisions differ from body to body. There is
however one salient common feature affecting the activities of all these bodies viz.
that they are required to follow the principles of natural justice.
• Ordinary judiciary is still overburden. It is because that the party who lost the case in
tribunal, more often than not, approach the higher judiciary.
• It is not cheap as more technical issues always pave the way for the lawyer.
• Many members of these bodies are ex-bureaucrats without any training of the law. Its
independence is compromised.

7. CONCLUSION:
Administrative rule-making action is controlled by parliament and the courts. In the condition
of quasi-judicial action, only that classifying determinant can be reasonable which is
institutional rather than functional. There are administrative bodies exercising adjudicatory
powers which are as full courts. It is only the will of the legislation that these are not
classified. However, it does not mean that because purple is the confused mixture of red and
blue, there is no distinction between red and blue. Administration decision-making action is
not required to follow the elaborate judicial procedure, rather, it is sufficient if, in the absence
of any statutory requirement, the action is rendered by the following the minimum procedure
of natural justice.
Quasi-judicial activity is limited to the issues that concern the particular administrative
agency. Quasi-Judicial is the action taken and discretion exercised by public administrative
agencies or bodies that are obliged to investigate or ascertain facts and draw conclusions from
them as the foundation for official actions.
Quasi-Judicial Institutions do a useful job in taking some type of work away from the courts
and dealing with the specialised matters, less valuable claims and matters involving the
exercise of discretion. It has been estimated that they deal with over a million cases a year.
Problems remain over lack of standard rights like the right of appeal, and procedures. In
many instances they make important decisions affecting people’s livelihood and quality of
life.

14
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY:
BOOKS

o I.P. Massy, Administrative Law, 7th Edn, 48-60

o M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law,1999, 476-669
o C.K. Thakkar, Administrative law, Eastern Book Company, chap. 3 and 9
o Durga Das Basu, Administrative Law, 6th ed.; Kamal Law House, Kolkata, 2005.

WEBSITES

o www.legalservicesindia.com
o www.thelawblog.com
o www.scconline.com
o www.indiankanoon.com
o www.thelawblog.com
o www.blogs.ipleaders.com

15