Writs against administrative authorities
Writs Against Administrative Authorities
In India, writs are constitutional remedies available under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts) of the Constitution. These writs can be issued against administrative authorities when they act arbitrarily, illegally, or exceed their powers (ultra vires). Administrative authorities include government departments, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies, and other quasi-governmental organizations.
There are five types of writs:
Habeas Corpus
Mandamus
Certiorari
Prohibition
Quo-Warranto
Let’s examine each writ with detailed case law examples, particularly focusing on their use against administrative authorities.
1. Writ of Mandamus
This writ commands a public authority to perform a public or statutory duty which it has failed to do.
📌 Case 1: Praga Tools Corporation v. C.A. Imanual (1969 AIR 1306)
Facts: Praga Tools, a government company, dismissed an employee (Imanual) without following due procedure.
Issue: Whether writ can lie against a government company?
Held: Supreme Court held that even if a body is a government company and not a statutory authority, if it is performing public functions, writs can be issued.
Significance: Mandamus can lie against a non-statutory body performing public functions.
📌 Case 2: State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty (1986 AIR 1165)
Facts: The government arbitrarily withheld certain benefits.
Held: The Court held that administrative authorities must act fairly and not arbitrarily.
Significance: Mandamus was issued directing the government to grant benefits in a non-arbitrary manner.
2. Writ of Certiorari
This writ is used to quash an order or decision of a quasi-judicial or administrative authority when:
It acts without jurisdiction, or
There is error apparent on face of record, or
It violates natural justice.
📌 Case 3: Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1996 AIR 11)
Facts: The government rejected a tender without providing proper reasons.
Held: Though the courts cannot interfere in policy matters, if the administrative action is arbitrary or unreasonable, courts can intervene.
Significance: Certiorari can be issued to quash such arbitrary administrative decisions.
📌 Case 4: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1970 AIR 150)
Facts: A selection committee member was also a candidate.
Held: The Court quashed the selection as it violated the principle of natural justice.
Significance: Administrative decisions that are quasi-judicial in nature can be reviewed and quashed.
3. Writ of Prohibition
This writ is issued to prevent an inferior court or quasi-judicial authority from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law.
📌 Case 5: East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs (AIR 1962 SC 1893)
Facts: Customs authorities tried to confiscate goods under a law not applicable to the case.
Held: Supreme Court issued prohibition as the authority was acting beyond its jurisdiction.
Significance: Administrative authorities acting without jurisdiction can be stopped using this writ.
4. Writ of Quo-Warranto
This writ is used to challenge the legality of a person’s claim to a public office.
📌 Case 6: University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao (AIR 1965 SC 491)
Facts: A person was appointed to a university post without the necessary qualifications.
Held: The appointment was quashed.
Significance: Administrative appointments can be challenged when made in violation of statutory provisions.
5. Writ of Habeas Corpus
This writ is used to produce a person who is detained illegally.
Though usually issued in criminal or preventive detention matters, it can also be issued against administrative detention.
📌 Case 7: Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate (AIR 1974 SC 510)
Facts: A Naxalite leader was detained without trial.
Held: Supreme Court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and ordered the production of the detained person.
Significance: Even preventive detention orders passed by administrative authorities are subject to judicial review.
Summary Table
| Writ Type | Purpose | Issued Against | Key Cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandamus | Compel authority to perform duty | Govt Depts, Public Bodies | Praga Tools, Lakshmikutty |
| Certiorari | Quash unlawful/quasi-judicial decisions | Tribunals, Administrators | Tata Cellular, A.K. Kraipak |
| Prohibition | Prevent excess of jurisdiction | Quasi-judicial/admin authorities | East India Commercial Co. |
| Quo-Warranto | Challenge illegal occupation of office | Public Officers | Mysore University v. Govinda Rao |
| Habeas Corpus | Release person from illegal detention | Police, Detaining Admin Authorities | Kanu Sanyal v. DM |
Conclusion
Writ jurisdiction is a vital tool to ensure accountability of administrative authorities. Through the use of writs, courts safeguard citizens' rights and prevent abuse of administrative power. Each writ serves a specific purpose and has been reinforced through judicial interpretation in various landmark cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments