Judicial Review of Discretionary Powers

  • Mahendra P. Singh

Abstract

Discretionary powers of the administration are as much an important phenomenon in German law as they are in common law or in any other legal system of today. They are no longer considered inconsistent with the notion of a just society. On the contrary there is a growing realization that such powers are necessary to achieve a just social order and to make the rule of law a positive reality. Of course, that does no mean that the administration must be given unlimited and unnecessary discretion, nor does it mean that the administration must be free from all limitations in the exercise of the discretion.1 Discretion does not mean arbitrariness. In the words of Lord Halsbury:2

‘discretion’ means when it is said that something is to be within the discretion of the authorities that that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion: Rooke’s Case: according to law and not humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself.

Keywords

Sugar Migration Income Assure Settling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See Davis KC: Discretionary Justice,chs I and III (1969).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharp v Wakefield [1891] AC 173. Cited in Wade HWR: Administrative Law,152–153 (5th ed, 1982).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ) 5 Co Rep 99 b.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See decisions of 30 Oct 1906, 50 PrOVG 417, 421: of 1 Nov 1934, 94 PrOVG 210; of 29 Nov 1964, 19 BVerwGE 332, 335; of 27 March, 1968, 29 BVerwGE 235; of 13 Feb 1974, 45 BVerwGE 13, 24; of 3 Feb 1959, 9 BVerfGE 134, 147; of 25 Feb 1962, 14 BVerfGE 105; Jellinek W: Verwaltungsrecht,64 (3d ed, 1931); Forsthoff E:Lehrbuch des Verwaltungsrecht I,97 (10th ed 1973); Maurer H: Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht,89 (1980); Wolff HJ, Bachof O: Verwaltungsrecht I,198 (9th ed, 1974); Badura P, Das Verwaltungshandeln,in Erichsen H-U, Martens W (eds): Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht,165 (4th ed, 1979).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See VwVfG, s 113 and VwGO 114. Compare, USC, s 706 (2) (A).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    See, for example, State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali,AIR 1952 SC 75; State of Punjab v Khan Chand,AIR 1974 SC 543; State of MPv Baldev Prasad,AIR 1961 SC 293; Raghubir v Court of Wards,AIR 1953 SC 373; Dwarka Prasad v State of UP, AIR 1954 SC 224. Not only that, the Supreme Court of India has expressed itself in very wide terms against the conferment of unguided discretion. In Jaisinghaniv Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1427 at 1434 it observed: In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decision should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decision should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. Compare the words quoted above at p 84.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Decision of 3 Feb 1959, 9 BVerfGE 137, 147.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decision of 10 July 1958, 8 BVerfGE 71.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Decision of 5 Aug 1966, 20 BVerfGE 150, 157–58.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Decision of 8 Aug 1978, 49 BVerfGE 89,157–59.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See Müller HJ: Das Ermessen in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts,[1960] DÖV 119, 127. Also see Pakuscher EK: The Use of Discretion in German Law, 44 UChiLRev 94 (1976). For a criticism of the Indian Supreme Court’s tendency to allow wider grant of discretion in India see Jain MP, Jain SN: Principles of Indian Administrative Law,347 ff (3d ed, 1979).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See Wolff, Bachof, above, n 4 at 199 ff.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Decision of 24 Nov 1969, 34 BVerwGE 241.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Decisions of 13 Dec 1962, 15 BVerwGE 196, 199, and of 28 Feb 1975, 48 BVerwGE 81, 84.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Decision of 17 Jan 1958, 6 BVerwGE 119, 127. Also decision of 1 June 1979 [1980] NJW 75 (BVerwG).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Decision of 22 Jan 1969, 31 BVerwGE 212.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Id, at 213–14. Comp, Shri Rama Sugar Industries v State of AP, AIR 1974 SC 1745.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Decision of 25 July 1964, 19 BVerwGE 48, 55.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Decision of 8 July 1964, 19 BVerwGE 87, 92. Also decision of 19 Dec 1972 (OVG Münster) [1973] DVBI 963.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Decision of 22 Sept 1970, 22 VR 487 (BVerwG).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Decision of 28 Feb 1975, 48 BVerwGE 81, 84. Also Wolff, Bachof, above, n 4 at 200.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Decision of 18 Aug 1960,11 BVerwGE 95, 97.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Decision of 13 Dec 1974, 47 BVerwGE 280, 283 and of 7 July 1978, 56 BVerwGE 63.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Decision of 7 July 1978, 56 BVerwGE 56. For a plea of objectivity in the matter of denial of such permission see Löhr R-P: Zum Ermessen bei Erlaubnis oder Versagung einer Sondernutzung,[1983] NVwZ 20.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See decisions of 14 June 1882, 9 PrOVG 353 and of 10 April 1886, 13 PrOVG 424, 426.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    See Hirschberg L: Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäfjigkeit,43–44 (1981).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Decision of 15 Dec 1965, 19 BVerfGE 342, 348–39.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Decisions of 4 Feb 1975, 38 BVerfGE 348, 368 and of 5 March 1968, 23 BVerfGE 127, 133.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Decision of 5 June 1973, 35 BVerfGE 202, 221.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Decision of 8 Feb 1977, 43 BVerfGE 242, 288.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Decision of 9 Nov 1976, 43 BVerfGE 101, 106.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    See Wade, above n 2 at 752 ff and de Smith SA: Judicial Review of Administrative Action 354–56 (4th ed, 1980).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    See Const of India, art 19 (2)-(6).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    The right to equality in article 14 admits reasonable classification and through article 14 the concept of reasonableness has been extended to the right to life and liberty in article 21. See, Maneka Gandhi v Union of India,AIR 1978 SC 597.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    On the question of reasonableness of executive legislation see Jain and Jain, above, n 11 at 61–63.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Re W (An Infant) [1971] AC 682, 700.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    See Chintaman Rao v. MP,AIR 1951 SC 118; Madras v. Row VG,AIR 1952 SC 196 in so far as the court emphasizes the proportionality of the restrictions with the public interest to be served.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Decision of 5 May 1908, 52 PrOVG, 419.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    OVG Berlin, 115.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Decision of 5 Nov 1968, 31 BVerwGE 15.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Decision of 30 Oct 1970, 27 OVG LüneburgE 321, 325.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wolff, Bachof: Verwaltungsrecht III,202 (4th ed, 1978) suggest that out of public resources only that much be granted to an individual as is necessary.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Decision of 16 March 1967,17 BWVGHE 227.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Decision of 3 June 1982, [ 1983 ] NVwZ 93, 94 (BVerwG).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Decision of 12 Jan 1962, 13 BVerwGE 288.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Decision of 14 April 1967, 26 BVerwGE 305, 309; also of 16 Dec 1971, 39 BVerwGE 190, 195.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Decision of 29 Sept 1965 [1966] DÖV 249 (BVerwG).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Drews, Wacke, Vogel, Martens: Gefahrenabwehr,156 (8th ed, 1975 by Vogel K).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Decision of 16 Oct 1963 of BW VGH cited in Drews et al, above, n 48.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Decision of 20 March 1970, 22 VR 64, 67 (BVerwG).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    BVerwGE 75, 77.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Decisions of 13 Nov 1979, 59 BVerwGE 105 and 112.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Id,at 109.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    See Wade, above n 2 at 507 ff. Compare, Wong Yang Sungv. McGrath,339 US 33 (1950) and the subsequent developments in Gellhom, Byse, Strauss: Administrative Law, 168 (7th ed, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Drews, et al above, n 48.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
  57. 57.
    de Smith, above, n 32 at 325 ff; Jain and Jain, above n 11 at 490–91.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    See above, p 85.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    See, for example, decisions of 2 July 1963, 16 BVerwGE 194, 196 and of 18 Sept 1970, 36 BVerwGE 119.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Decision of 1 Oct 1909, 55 PrOVG 459.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Decision of 2 March 1971, 37 BVerwGE 283.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Decision of 22 Jan 1971, 37 BVerwGE 116.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Decision of 18 Sept 1970, 36 BVerwGE 119.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Decisions of 16 July 1970, 35 BVerwGE 291, 294; of 13 Nov 1979, 59 BVerwGE 105 and 112; and of 26 Feb 1980, 60 BVerwGE 75. Also decision of 18 July 1979, 51 BVerfGE 386.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Decision of 2 July 1963, 16 BVerwGE 194.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Decision of 13 Feb 1958, 6 BVerwGE 186.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Decision of 26 Aug 81 [1983] NVwZ 49 (OVG Luneburg).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Decision of 3 May 1973, 42 BVerwGE 133.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Decision of 16 June 1970, 35 BVerwGE 291.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Decision of 17 Jan 1980, 59 BVerwGE 284.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Decision of 12 July 1972, 40 BVerwGE 237.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Decision of 25 Oct 1978, 56 BVerwGE 355.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Decision of 7 Feb 1952, 6 VR 71, 73 (WB VGH).Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Decision of 25 Nov 1964, 21 OVG 1, 10 Münster. Also decision of 14. Sep 1981 [1982] NVwZ 194 (BVerwG).Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    See Drews et al, above, n 48 at 146.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
  77. 77.
    See Jain and Jain, above, n 11 at 522 ff. The recent notable decisions are: JPKulshreshtha v Allahabad University, AIR 1980 SC 2541; Omprakash v Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1981 SC 1001, Vishundas Hundamal v State of MP, AIR 1981 SC 1636; Allied Transport Co v State of MP, AIR 1981 SC 1639.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Decision of 12 Dec 1962, 15 BVerwGE 190, 196; and of 22 Jan 1969, 31 BVerwGE 212, 214.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Decision of 10 Dec 1969, 34 BVerwGE 278, 281.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Decision of 12 Feb 1964, 16 VR 935 (OVG Münster).Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Decision of 30 May 1973, 19–21 Gewerbearchiv 59, 60 (VGH München).Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Decision of 13 Oct 1972 41 BVerwGE 34.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Decision of 26 July 1979, 26 Bay VBI 86 (Bay VGH).Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Decision of 17 Jan 1969, 31 BVerwGE 190. Also decision of 3 Dec 1981 [1983] NJW 407 (BVerwG).Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Decision of 12 April 1956, 5 BVerfGE 1.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Decision of 10 Dec 1969, 34 BVerwGE 278, 283.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Decision of 25 July 1962 [1963] DVBI 65 (BVerwG).Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    For the relationship between discretion and indefinite legal concepts see Ule CH: Verwaltungsprozessrecht,6ff. (7th ed, 1978).Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    See Erichsen H-U, Martens W: Das Verwaltungshandeln,in Erichsen, Martens, above, n at 161Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Bachof O, Beurteilungsspielraum, Ermessen and unbestimmter Rechtsbegriff in Verwaltungsrecht,[1955] JZ 97.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Ule, above, n 88 at 9. Also see Wolff, Bachof, above, n 4 at 192 where they plead that the courts should recognize a prerogative of assessment of the authorities particularly where future developments are involved and the administrative decision does not violate the tolerable limits of the interpretation of a concept. Compare, Rochester Tel. Corp v United States, 307 US 125 (1939).Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    See Maurer, above, n 4 at 95.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Decision of 15 BVerwGE 207, 208.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Decision of 28 Jan 1966 23 BVerwGE 194, 200f.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Decision of 24 BVerwGE 60, 63 f.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Decision of 26 BVerwGE 65.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Decision of 19 Dec 1968, 31 BVerwGE 149, 152.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    BVerwGE 69, 72ff.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Decision of 5 Feb 1963 15 BVerfGE 275, 282.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    BVerwGE 197 Also decision of 19 Oct 1971, 39 BVerwGE 355.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Decision of 12 Jan 1966, 23 BVerwGE 112.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    BVerwGE 197, 203.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Id,at 205.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    BVerwGE 162.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Decision of 9 July 1974, 45 BVerwGE 331.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Decision of 24 July 1975, 49 BVerwGE 79, 85.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Decision of 12 Feb 1976, 50 BVerwGE 161,164ff.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Decision of 17 Feb 1978, 55 BVerwGE 250, 253 f.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Decision of 19 Feb 1982, 65 BVerwGE 73, 75.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Also see the recent Peep-Show Case,above, p 78.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Erichsen and Martens, above, n at 162–3.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    See Maurer, above n 4 at 97f; Wolff, Bachof, above, n 4 at 192ff; Achterberg N: Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 273 (1982).Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    See Wade, above, n 2 at 249ff and more specifically at 284ff; Davis KC: Administrative Law Text, 545 ff. (1972).Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Compare, Baldev Raj v Union of India,AIR 1981 SC 70 where the Supreme Court of India has held that whether the compulsory retirement of a government servant is, `in the public interest’ under rule 56 (J) of the Fundamental Rules is subject to judicial review in so far as the court can judge whether the retirement is in the public interest.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Above, p 71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahendra P. Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations