QUASI JUDICIAL FUNTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE

BODIES

FINAL SUBMISSION IN FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE

ADMISTRATIVE LAW , SEMESTER VI DURING THE ACADEMIC
YEAR 2020-21

SUBMITTED BY:-
SWATI KUMARI

Roll No-171571,B.A.LL.B(hons)

SUBMITTED TO:-
Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F

Faculty Of Administrative law

MAY 2020

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA

1|Page
 Table of Contents

Declaration 3

Acknowledgement 4

Research Methodology 5

Chapter 1 – Introduction 6

Chapter 2 –Evolution and development of Administrative law in India 8

Chapter 3 – Classification of Administrative Function 11

Chapter 4 – Legislative or Judicial Function 12

Chapter 5- Legislative or Executive function 13

Chapter 6- Administrative or Quasi Judicial function 17

Chapter 7- Conclusion 18

Bibliography

2|Page
 Declaration By the Candidate

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled “Quasi
judicial function of administrative bodies ” carried out under the supervision of Dr. Fr Peter

Ladis ,Administrative law ,Chanakya National law University. I have not submitted
this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible for the contents of my
Project Report.

SWATI KUMARI

Chanakya National Law University, Patna

20/05/2020

3|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives me immense pleasure to express my gratitude towards all those who have helped and
encouraged me for the completion of this project. They all rendered their valuable time and
services in making this project a success.

Firstly, I would like to thank the all mighty God for blessing and giving me support in
completing this project. I take this opportunity to express my deep regards to my guide, DR
Fr. Peter Ladis for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this thesis.

At last, but not the least, I express my sincere thanks to my parents for their generous support
and cooperation throughout the project.

Swati Kumari

6th Semester

B.A. LL.B. (Hons) Chanakya National Law University

4|Page
AIMS & OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The objective of the researcher is:

 To know the nature & scope of the concept of Administrative law.

 To understand the nature and function carried out by the administrative bodies.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
 Doctrinal method :- Books, internet, journals, judgements etc.
 Researcher is mainly relying on library based study.

SOURCES OF DATA COLLECTION

Primary sources- Theories of Jurisprudence, statutes, precedent & other official documents.

Secondary sources- statement of judges, websites, articles, news paper, books, journals etc

LIMITATION & SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Due to lack of time and lack of resources my research work is wholly based on doctrinal
method of research, my research work doesn’t rely on non-doctrinal research or empirical
research.

5|Page
 Chapter -1

INTRODUCTION
Quasi-judicial is defined as an action by an administrative agency which

 ascertains certain facts,

 hold hearings,
 weigh evidence,
 make conclusions from the facts as a basis for their official action, and
 exercises discretion of a judicial nature.

A quasi-judicial proceeding investigates a disputed claim, weighs evidentiary facts and

reaches a binding decision.  In Brustad v. Rosas, 1999 Minn. App. LEXIS 1384 (Minn. Ct.
App. Dec. 28, 1999), the court held that quasi judicial decisions are binding on the disputed
claim.  The proceedings of administrative agencies are quasi-judicial when; hearing is held,
both parties participate, the presiding officer subpoena witnesses and the administrative body
has the power to take remedial action.

In Cabana v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 21 P.3d 833 (Alaska 2001), the court held that when
an entity which normally acts as a legislative body applies general policy in private
capacities, it is functioning in a quasi-judicial capacity.

In Robertson v. Astrue, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64487 (W.D. Va. July 17, 2009), the court
held that although there are wide differences between administrative agencies and courts,
they share a relationship similar to lower and upper courts.  similarly while performing a
judicial function an entity is similar to a district court.  When an administrative body acts in a
quasi-judicial manner, due process requires notice and an opportunity for a full and fair
hearing.  In Toker v. Pollak, 44 N.Y.2d 211 (N.Y. 1978), the court held that there is absolute
immunity to communications made in the course of quasi-judicial administrative
proceedings.

6|Page
 Chapter -2

EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE

LAW IN INDIA

Administrative law has become extremely crucial in the developed society since the
relationship of the administrative authorities and the people has become complex. In order to
regulate these complexities some law is necessary, which can help maintain regularity
certainty and check misuse of powers vested in the administration. This increase in the
spectrum of responsibilities ushered in an administrative age and an era of Administrative
law. Administrative has been characterized as the most outstanding legal development of the
20th-century. The governments have evolved from being laisseze faire to parens patria. This
development saw a similar trend in several parts of the world.

Administrative law in India can be traced back to ancient history times. The Maurya and the
Gupta dynasties of Ancient India had centralised administrative system. Following this, came
the Mughals who had somewhat similar administrative system. The kings in the anterior
period of history were mostly concerned majorly about three things-

 Protecting the state from external aggression

 Maintaining law and order and order
 Collecting taxes.

With the arrival of the British in India, there was the advent of modern administrative law.
Establishment of East India Company increased the government’s powers manifold. Several
Acts, legislatures and statutes were brought by the British Parliament for regulating public
safety, health, morality, transport and labour relations. The exercise of granting licences
began with the State Carriage Act, 1861. The first public corporation came into existence
under the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879. Delegated legislation was accepted as legitimate
power of the Executive in Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 and Opium Act,
1878.

7|Page
In many statutes, provisions were made vis-a-vis granting of permits and licences and
settlement of disputes by administrative authorities and tribunals. During the Second World
War, the executive powers increased manifold by virtue of Defence of India Act. In addition
to this, the government issued many orders and ordinances, covering several matters by way
of Administrative instructions.

Post independence, India adopted a welfare state approach, which in turn increased state
activities. With increase in power and activity of the Government and administrative
authorities increased so did the need for ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Judicial Review of State actions’.
The philosophy of a welfare state became specifically embodied in the Constitution of India.
In the Constitution itself, provisions were made to secure to all citizens social, economic and
political justice, equality of status and opportunity. The ownership and control of material
resources of the society should be so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good.

For better administration and execution of laws at the ground level, procedures such as laying
and delegated legislation were borrowed from contemporary regimes and customised to cater
to the Indian needs. Also, if rules, regulations and orders passed by the administrative
authorities were found to be beyond their legislative powers then such orders, rules and
regulations were to be declared ultra-vires, unconstitutional, illegal and void. This flexibility
of administrative law also marks an important feature of evolution of administrative law in
India.

8|Page
 Chapter -3

CLASSIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION

There is a great variety of administrative powers, such as to investigate, to prosecute, to make
rules and regulations, to adopt schemes, to fix prices, to issue and cancel licences, to
adjudicate on disputes etc. When an administrative action partakes of some judicial
characteristics, it is characterised as ‘quasi-judicial’. Decisions of a court of law are judicial
in nature, though in certain matters the judges may act administratively. Administrative
authorities act either in an administrative or a quasi-judicial manner but never in judicial
manner for, by and large, they lack the impartiality and objectivity of a judge and it is
therefore best, in order to avoid confusion, to apply the expression judicial to a court and not
to an administrative authority.

A question which often arises in administrative law is whether the function performed by a
body is administrative, quasi-judicial or legislative in character. The answer to this question
bristles with difficulties as there is no precise test to distinguish the three functions* A further
difficulty in such classification is created by the fact that a single proceeding may at times
combine some aspects of all three functions. “ It is indeed difficult in theory and impossible
to draw a precise dividing line between the legislative on the one hand and the purely
administrative on the other; administrative action so often partakes of both legislative and
executive characteristics. The true nature of statutory provisions of regulations made
thereunder is not infrequently still further complicated by the addition of a quasi-judicial
aspect.1

Though there exists no clear formula for making the distinction between legislative,
administrative and quasi-judicial functions, the distinction is, nevertheless, sought to be made
as several legal consequences flow from it, e-g- a body exercising quasi-judicial function is
bound to follow principles of natural justice and is amenable to the writ of certiorari or
prohibition and also to the special leave jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under article 136.
On the other hand, it is act so in the case of a body exercising an administrative or legislative
function involving quasi-judicial aspect at any stage; it is subject only to a relatively

1
Report of the Committee on Minister’s Powers 19 (1932)

9|Page
restricted judicial review. Problems of sub-delegation have a somewhat different connotation
depending on the nature of the function. For instance, the legal rights of a person may depend
upon the characterisation of rules or principles issued by the administration for the guidance
of an authority as legislative or administrative; if regarded as merely administrative
instructions, and not legislative in character or having a statutory force, they may not be
enforceable by the aggrieved party.

There is no precise formula to describe the nature of the administrative action, and the case-
law is neither consistent nor coherent. Legislation is also distinguished from administration
on the ground that the former has an element of generality about it, as it applies to a group of
persons, whereas the latter is particular in its application. But this does not provide an
articulate test, for it is not always possible to separate particular from general.

It is very much more difficult it is to distinguish administrative from quasi judicial function-
Whether an authority acts in a quasi-judicial or administrative capacity depends on the scope
and effect of the power conferred by the statute and/or the rules. Ordinarily it is said that if
the statute imposes either expressly or by necessary implication an obligation to act
judicially, the authority acts in a guasi-iudicial manner. But this proposition, it would seem, is
hardly illuminating. It is, to some extent, tautologous to say that the function is quasi judicial
if it is to be done judicially. Furthermore, it is not common in the statute to find any specific
or express statement that the body ^functioning under it should act in a quasi-judicial manner.
In mosticases, such a duty has to be inferred from the statute. If a body decides a dispute
between two opposing parties, then prima lacic, in the absence of anything to the contrary in
the stature, the (body may be treated as quasi-judicial. But the absence of two parties is not,
however, decisive of the character of the body’s function. It ' tile act prejudicially affects a
person, the body may still be regarded as acting in a quasi-judicial manner if the relevant
statute implies so. Thus, when a body decides a controversy between itself and another
person, it may be regarded as acting in a 'quasi-judicial' or administrative' manner.

Ultimately, whether a body acts in a quasi-judicial or administrative capacity is a question to

be determined in each case, by an examination of relevant facts, circumstances, statute, and
rules framed thereunder, if any. As Wanchoo, J. has observed in Board of High School V.
Ghanshyam,2 “ The inference whether the authority acting under a statute where it is silent
has the duty to act judicially will depend o n the express provisions of the statute read along

2
AIR. 1962 S.C.11O

10 | P a g e
with the nature of the rights affected, the manner of the disposal provided, the objective
criterion, if any, to be adopted, the effect of the decision on the person affected and other
indicia afforded by the statute. A duty to act judicially may arise in widely different
circumstances which it will be impossible and indeed inadvisable to attempt to define
exhaustively,”3

3
Id at 1113-1

11 | P a g e
 Chapter -4

LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL FUNCTION

Probably the most famous attempt to explain the difference between legislative and judicial
functions is that made by Justice Holmes in Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Company, “ A
judicial inquiry,” said he, “ investigates, declares, and enforces liabilities as they stand on
present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist That it is its purpose and end.
Legislation on the other hand looks to the future and changes existing conditions by making a
new rule to be applied thereafter to all or some part of those subject to its power.” The key
factor in Justice Holmes’s analysis is the element of time; a rule prescribes future patterns of
conduct; a decision determines liabilities upon the basis of present and past facts. The
element of applicability has been emphasized by other commentators as the key in
differentiating legislative from judicial functions. According to them, a rule is a
determination of general applicability, “ addressed to indicated but unnamed and unspecified
persons or situations;” a decision on the other hand, applies to specific individuals or
situations. As expressed by Professor Dickinson, "what distinguishes legislation from
adjudication is that the former affects the rights of individuals in the abstract and must be
applied in a further proceeding before the legal position of any particular individual will be
definitely touched by it; while adjudication operates concretely upon individuals in their
individual capacity.” Both the approach of Justice Holmes and that of Professor Dickinson
will enable one to distinguish between rule making and adjudication in the great majority of
cases. There are, however, certain situations which cause difficulty. Thus, under Justice
Holmes’s test, an administrative determination which is future in effect is a rule. This would
lead to the conclusion that licensing or issuance of injunctive orders, such as a cease and
desist order of the Federal Trade Commission, are instances of rule-making; which would be
undesirable from the point of view of the procedural requirements which should be necessary
in such cases* On the other hand, if the test of applicability be adopted, a function such as
rate-making would be classified as judicial, although most of the authority on the point
indicates that it is legislative in character.

12 | P a g e
 Chapter -5

SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE FUNCTION

The distinction between “ legislative” and “executive” is very difficult to draw. There are two
tests which have been suggested. The first is institutional: that which the Legislature enacts is
legislation. Since no subordinate legislation is strictly enacted by Parliament, this is of no
value. If the meaning of the word “ enacts” is extended to include that which is done by
Parliamentary authority, all kinds of actions are let in and solution is no nearer. Secondly, the
meaning of “legislative” and “ executive” may be determined by reference to the nature of
the action. By this test, a power to make rules of general application is a legislative power
and the rule is a legislative rale. A power to give orders in specific “ cases” is, by the same
test, an executive power and the order is an executive action. The difficulty here is that of
distinguishing between what is “ general” and what is “ specific.” These words, although they
have some extreme and easily recognisable forms, do not help to solve the doubtful cases.
The matter is finally one for arbitrary decision.

13 | P a g e
 Chapter -6

ADMINISTRATIVE OR QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION

 Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Decision

A “ quasi-judicial” decision is thus one which has some of the attributes of a judicial
decision, but not all. A true judicial decision presupposes an existing dispute between two
more parties, and then involves requisites

(1) the presentation (not necessarily orally) of their case by the parties to the dispute:

(2) if the dispute between them is a question of fact, the ascertainment of fact by means of
evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute and often with the assistance of argument by or
on behalf of the parties on the evidence;

(3) if the dispute between them is a question of law, the submission of legal argument by the
parties; and

(4) a decision which disposes of the whole matter by finding upon the facts in dispute and an
application of the law of the land to the facts so found, including, where required, a ruling
upon any disputed question of law.

A quasi-judicial decision equally presupposes an existing dispute between two or more

parties and involves (1) and (2) but does not necessarily involve (3) and never involves (4).
The place of (5) is in fact taken by administrative action, the character of which is determined
by the Minister's free-choice. For example, suppose a statute empowers a Minister to take
action if certain facts are provided, and in that event gives him an absolute discretion whether
or not to take action. In such a case he must consider the representations of the parties and
ascertain the facts— to that extent the decision contains a judicial element. But, the facts once
ascertained, his decision does not depend on any legal or statutory direction, for hypothesis
he is left free within his statutory powers to take such administrative action as he may think
fit; that is to say that the matter is not finally disposed of by the process of (4). Whereas it is
of the essence of a judicial decision that the matter is finally disposed of by that process and
nothing remains to be done except the execution of the judgment, a step which the law of the
land compels automatically, in the case of the quasi-judicial decision the finality of (4) is

14 | P a g e
absent; another and a different kind of step has to be taken; the Minister— who for this
purpose personified the whole administrative Department of State—has to make up his mind
whether he will or will not take administrative action and if so what action. His ultimate
decision is “ quasi-judicial", and not judicial, because it is governed, not by a statutory
direction to him to apply the law of the land to the facts and act accordingly, but by a
statutory permission to use his discretwn after he has ascertained the facts and to be guided
by considerations of public policy. This option would not be open to him if he were
exercising a purely judicial function.

 Administrative decisions to be distinguished

Decisions which are purely administrative stand on a wholly different footing from ciuasi-
judicial as "well as from judicial decisions and must be distinguished accordingly.... In the
case of the administrative decision, there is no legal obligation upon the person charged with
the duty of reaching the decision to consider and weigh submissions and arguments, or to
collate any evidence, or to solve any issue. The grounds upon which he acts, and the means
which he takes to inform himself before acting, are left entirely to his discretion.

But even a large number of administrative decisions may and do involve, in greater or less
degree, at some stage in the procedure which eventuates in executive action, certain of the
attributes of a judicial decision. Indeed, generally speaking a quasi-judicial decision is only
an administrative decision, some stage or some element of which possesses judicial
characteristics.... The intermingling of the two elements in one composite “ decision” is well
illustrated by the type of case where the judicial elements loom large in proportion to the
administrative, although the final act is administrative. Instances we have in mind are the
decisions of licensing authorities constituted under an A ct of Parliament with an obligation
to grant licences to fit and proper persons in accordance with the intentions and under the
conditions of the Acts. The ultimate decision is administrative and not judicial in each case—
whether given by a justice, a commissioner, or the Minister. But evidence has to be
considered and weighed; arguments on fact and possibly law have to be heard, and
conclusions reached; irrelevant and improper considerations have to be excluded; and the
body hearing the application must be disinterested and free from bias. And it is only after
they have taken all the above preliminary steps judicially that they pass into pure
administration and in the exercise of administrative discretion on grounds of public policy
choose to grant or withhold a licence.

15 | P a g e
 Chapter -7

CONCLUSION

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. As a general rule, only courts of law have the authority to decide
controversies that affect individual rights. One major exception to this general rule is the
power of an ADMINISTRATIVE BODY to make decisions concerning the rights of parties.
An administrative body is a body of government created by a legislature and charged with
supervision and regulation of a particular area of governmental concern. Part of the
regulatory power given to an administrative body is the power of adjudication. With the
exception of rule making, any decision by a body that has a legal effect is a quasi-judicial
action.

Quasi-judicial activity is limited to the issues that concern the particular administrative
agency. For example, the SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION may resolve disputes
on issues concerning SOCIAL SECURITY contributions and benefits, but it may not decide
any other issues, even those related to Social Security benefits such as tax, estate, and probate
questions. An administrative agency must hold a formal hearing only when required by
statute. A formal hearing is a complete hearing with the presentation of testimony, evidence,
and arguments. An informal hearing usually is a simple meeting and discussion between an
agent of the agency and the individual affected by the agency's actions. As a general rule, the
scope of a hearing depends on the importance of the right at issue. If the INTERNAL
REVENUE SERVICE attempts to take away a person's homestead, for example, a full
hearing would be required. By contrast, when an agent of the Department of Safety issues a
small fine for illegal parking, the agency needs to provide only a brief, one-to-one meeting
with a hearing officer regarding the issuance of the fine.

Quasi-judicial action by an administrative agency may be appealed to a court of law. With a

few exceptions, a plaintiff generally must exhaust all remedies available through an agency
before appealing the agency's decision in a case. One notable exception is that a person may
appeal directly to a court of law and bypass the quasi-judicial activity of an administrative

16 | P a g e
agency if the agency's remedies would be inadequate. For instance, if the creditors of a failed
bank are suing the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, they need not go
through the agency's hearings before filing suit in a court of law because the agency has
adverse interests to the creditors.

17 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

 Upendra Baxi, Developments In Indian Administrative Law, Public Law In India

 Freund, Administrative Powers over Persons and Property

Website:

https://administrativelaw.uslegal.com/administrative-agencies/quasi-judicial-functions/

http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/15517/7/Chapter%20III_Classification%20of
%20Administrative%20Functions%20%2890-171%29.pdf

18 | P a g e