Q.

1) ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN ONE OR TWO

SENTENCES EACH:

1) Mention any two sources of Administrative Law ?

Ans:- Sources of Administrative Law are as follows:-
1) The Constitution
2) Ordinances Issued
3) Enactments
4) Judicial Decisions
5) Delegated Legislation
6) Decisions of Administrative Tribunals
7) Committee Reports
8) Other Methods.

2) What is Counseil d’ estate?

Ans:- Counseil d’ estate governmental body that acts both as legal
adviser to the executive branch and as the supreme court for
administrative justice, which is one of the two branches of the French
judiciary system.

3) Define Seperation of Powers?

Ans:- Richard Benwell and Oonagh Gay define the idea as, “Separation
of powers refers to the idea that the major institutions of state should be
functionally independent and that no individual should have powers
that span these offices.”
Marchamont Nedham, writing under Cromwell’s Protectorate in 1656,
stated that separation of power requires separation of legislative and
executive powers into different “hands and persons.”

4) What is Laizze-Faire ?
Ans:- Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone" which means that the
government leaves the people. alone regarding all economic activities. It
is the separation of economy and state.The state was. characterized as
the “law and order” state and its role was conceived to be negative as its
interest.

5) What does Laches means?

Ans: Laches is a legal principle about waiting too long before claiming
your rights. If someone delays in pursuing a legal claim, they may be
barred from seeking relief or remedies. Laches emphasises timely and
fair legal proceedings to prevent injustice caused by time-

6) What is Personal bias?

Ans: Personal bias may arise from a variety of relationships
e.g.Friendship or enmity or rivalry.
Mineral Development Corporation Ltd
V/S
State of Bihar
7) Define “ Res-Judicata”?
Ans: Res means “subject matter” and judicata means “adjudged” or
decided and together it means “a matter adjudged”.
In simpler words, the thing has been judged by the court, the issue
before a court has already been decided by another court and between
the same parties. Hence, the court will dismiss the case as it has been
decided by another court. Res judicata applies to both civil and criminal
legal systems. No suit which has been directly or indirectly tried in a
former suit can be tried again.
Bombay Gas Company V/S Shridhar A.I.R 1961 S.C.1196

8)What is “ Sovereign Function”?

Ans:-Sovereign functions of the state can be defined as those functions
where the state is not answerable before the court of law for their
performance. These functions are mainly concerned about the defence of
the country, maintenance of the armed forces of the country, and
maintenance of peace in the territory. These functions can only be
performed by the state for external sovereignty and that is why they are
not amenable to the jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Courts and are
primarily inalienable functions.

9)Define Judicial Review?

Ans:-Judicial Review means the power of the Supreme Court (or High
Courts) to examine the constitutionality of any law if the Court arrives at
the conclusion that the law is inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution, such a law is declared as unconstitutional and
inapplicable.

10)Who is a “Locus Standi”?

Ans:- A "Locus Standi" refers to a person or entity with the legal right to
bring a lawsuit or participate in a legal proceeding, essentially meaning
they have a sufficient interest in the matter at hand to be involved in the
case; it is also known as "standing" in legal terms.

Q.2) Explain the Provisions relating to Administrative Tribunal?

Ans:- Introduction :
In France, there are administrative courts of general jurisdiction headed
by counseil d’ etate and ordinary courts. Besides administrative courts
there are a number of other administrative jurisdictions exercising
judicial functions in particular areas.

In England , administrative tribunals are said to be have come into

existance in the beginning of 20th century. The administrative tribunals
are established by legislative enactments. The supervision of such
tribunals has been an important issue. In England the chrichel down
case of 1954- a case of maladministration (and now falling under the
jurisdiction of the Parliamentary commissioner ) triggered off the Franks
Committee. The committee made an extensive report and as a result the
Tribunals and Inquiries Act,1958 was enacted . This Act was amended in
1959 & 1966 and was consolidated by the same title act of 1971 and again
by the tribunals an Inquiries Act,1992.
In India, A tribunal is a quasi-judicial institution that is set up to deal
with problems such as resolving administrative or tax-related disputes.
The original Constitution did not contain provisions with respect to
tribunals. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 added a new Part XIV-A to
the Constitution of India (1950). Part XIV-A is entitled as Tribunals and
consists of two Articles namely Article 323A and 323B.
Provision Relating to Administrative Tribunals :-
Article 323A of COI
 This Article deals with Administrative Tribunals. It states that-

(1) Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by

administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect
to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to
public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or
of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of
India or under the control of the Government of India or of any
corporation owned or controlled by the Government.

(2) A law made under clause (1) may—

(a) Provide for the establishment of an administrative tribunal for the

Union and a separate administrative tribunal for each State or for two
or more States.
(b) Specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for
contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of the said
tribunals.

(c) Provide for the procedure (including provisions as to limitation and

rules of evidence) to be followed by the said tribunals.

(d) Exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under article 136, with respect to the disputes or
complaints referred to in clause (1).

(e) Provide for the transfer to each such administrative tribunal of any
cases pending before any court or other authority immediately before
the establishment of such tribunal as would have been within the
jurisdiction of such tribunal if the causes of action on which such suits or
proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment.

(f) Repeal or amend any order made by the President under clause (3)
of article 371D.
(g) Contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions
(including provisions as to fees) as Parliament may deem necessary for
the effective functioning of, and for the speedy disposal of cases by,
and the enforcement of the orders of, such tribunals.

(3) The provisions of this article shall have effect notwithstanding

anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law
for the time being in force.
Article 323B of COI
 This Article deals with the tribunals for other matters. It states
that -

(1) The appropriate Legislature may, by law, provide for the

adjudication or trial by tribunals of any disputes, complaints, or offences
with respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2) with
respect to which such Legislature has power to make laws.
(2) The matters referred to in clause (1) are the following, namely: —

(a) Levy, assessment, collection and enforcement of any tax.

(b) Foreign exchange, import and export across customs frontiers.

(c) Industrial and labor disputes.

(d) Land reforms by way of acquisition by the State of any estate as

defined in article 31A or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or
modification of any such rights or by way of ceiling on agricultural land
or in any other way.

(e) Ceiling on urban property.

(f) Elections to either House of Parliament or the House or either House
of the Legislature of a State, but excluding the matters referred to in
Article 329 and Article 329A.

(g) Production, procurement, supply and distribution of food-stuffs

(including edible oilseeds and oils) and such other goods as the
President may, by public notification, declare to be essential goods for
the purpose of this article and control of prices of such goods.

(h) Rent, its regulation and control and tenancy issues including the
right, title and interest of landlords and tenants.

(i) Offences against laws with respect to any of the matters specified in
sub-clauses (a) to (h) and fees in respect of any of those matters.

(j) Any matter incidental to any of the matters specified in sub-clauses

(a) to (i).
(3) A law made under clause (1) may—

(a) Provide for the establishment of a hierarchy of tribunals.

(b) Specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for
contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of the said
tribunals.

(c) Provide for the procedure (including provisions as to limitation and

rules of evidence) to be followed by the said tribunals

(d) Exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under article 136, with respect to all or any of the
matters falling within the jurisdiction of the said tribunals

(e) Provide for the transfer to each such tribunal of any cases pending
before any court or any other authority immediately before the
establishment of such tribunal as would have been within the
jurisdiction of such tribunal if the causes of action on which such suits or
proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment

(f) Contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential

provisions (including provisions as to fees) as the appropriate
Legislature may deem necessary for the effective functioning of, and for
the speedy disposal of cases by, and the enforcement of the orders of,
such tribunals.

(4) The provisions of this article shall have effect notwithstanding

anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law
for the time being in force.

Explanation. —In this article, “appropriate Legislature”, in relation to

any matter, means Parliament or, as the case may be, a State Legislature
competent to make laws with respect to such matter in accordance with
the provisions of Part XI. `

CASE LAWS:- L . CHANDRA KUMAR

V/S

UNION OF INDIA

A.I.R.1997 S.C.1125 (1997) 3 SCC 261

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India was a 1997 landmark case that

established the validity of Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution of
India. The case also addressed the scope of judicial review by the High
Courts and the Supreme Court.
CIT V/S DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS
The S.C held that the Income Tax Officer was not fettered by technical
rules of evidence and pleadings and was entitled to act on materials
which might not be accepted as evidence in court of law .
S.P.SAMPATKUMAR V/S STATE OF ANDHRA
The Supreme Court examined the Constitutionality of the
Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 but did not consider the
constitutional validity of Article 323-A and 323-B of the constitution.
The ruling of a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh high court and two
decisions of the supreme court paved the way for a review of S.P.Sampat
Kumar.
Conclusion :-
It can be concluded that in the present scenario, the administration has
become an important part of the government as well as the citizen’s life.
Due to this increasing role, it is important to establish a competent
authority for the redressal of people’s grievances and adjudication of the
disputes. Therefore, the concept of administrative tribunals was
emerged and is dynamically flourishing in India holding certain flaws
and strengths.

Q.3) Discuss in detail “ Audi alteram Partem”?

Ans:- Introduction :-

This maxim means “hear the other side” or no man should be unheard,
both the parties have an opportunity of being heard. Justice will be
given to both parties. Audi alteram partem is from a latin phrase
“audiatur et altera pars”. Its meaning is also the same as hear the other
side. This is a very strong rule which means no one will be judged
without fair hearing. The motive of this maxim is to provide an
opportunity to other party to respond to the evidence against him.
Meaning of maxim :-
This maxim has been applied to ensure fair play and justice to the
person who is affected. It is mainly applicable in the field of
administrative action. The procedure which is adopted should be just
and fair. The person should be given an opportunity so that he can
defend himself before the court of law. The person who decides
anything without hearing the other side although he says what is right
but he would not have done what is right. The principle of hearing is
basically a code of procedure and thus covers every stage through which
an administrative jurisdiction passes that is from notice to final
determination.
It was said by De Smith that “No suggestion can be more obviously settled
than that a man can’t cause the loss of freedom or property for an offense by a
legal continuing until he has had a reasonable chance of noting the body of
evidence against him”. A person will not suffer unless and until he had an
opportunity of being heard. This is the primary rule of humanized
statute and is acknowledged by the laws of men and god. Before any
order is passed against any individual person, sensible chance of being
heard must be given to him. In this maxim two principles are considered
that is fundamental justice and equity.

Essential elements of this maxim are as follow:

“Both parties to be heard “ or “No Man should be condemned
unheard” relates to the following two requirements:-
i) A reasonable notice of the case must be given to the party
affected;
ii) A reasonable opportunity must be given to the party affected to
present its case or to be heard its’ case It is also called a right of
fair hearing.

 Reasonable Notice :-
It is necessary in the interest of principles of Natural Justice that a
reasonable notice must be given to the party affected to show cause
against the proposed action. Notice does not have any specific
requirement of any form in which the same is given . Notice may be
in any form, but the notice should not be uncertain, vague or
ambiguous. Notice must supply necessary information, sufficient
material to enable the person who is charged to have sufficient and
adequate opportunity and time to present his defence.

Contents of Reasonable Notice:-

The following contents of the notice make the notice
reasonable and adequate-
i) Notice must contain the specific charges.
ii) Notice should disclose the authority, which is
empowered to hear the case.
iii) Notice should include and therein it should specify the
time ,place and nature of hearing.
CASE LAWS:
 Punjab National Bank v. All India Bank Employees Federation
In this case the notice which was given to the party contain certain
charges but it was not mentioned anywhere that penalty was
imposed on the charges. Hence, the charges on which penalty was
imposed was not served as a notice to the parties concerned. The
notice was not proper and thus, the penalty which was imposed was
invalid.

 Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India

The notice which is given to the parties should be clear and
unambiguous. If it is ambiguous and it is not clear then the notice
will not be considered as reasonable and proper.

 Hearing
The second most essential element of audi alteram partem is fair
hearing. If the order passed by the authority without hearing the
party or without giving him an opportunity of being heard then it
will be considered as an invalid.
Case – Harbans Lal v Commissioner, National Co-operative Bank
v. Ajay Kumar and Fateh Singh v State of Rajasthan [4]
In this case, it was held that if a person gets a reasonable
opportunity of being heard or fair hearing it is an essential
ingredient of the principal of audi alteram partem. This condition
is accompanied by the authority providing written or oral hearing
which is discretion of the authority, unless the statute under which
action is taken by the authority provides otherwise. It is the duty
of authority to ensure that affected parties should get a chance of
oral or personal hearing or not.
 Evidence
Evidence is considered as a most important part which is brought
before the court when both the parties are present there and the
judicial or quasi judicial authority will act upon the evidence
which is produced before the court.
Case – Stafford v Minister of Health

In this case, it was held that no evidence should be received in the

absence of the other party and if any such evidence is recorded
then it is the duty of authority to make it available to the other
party.
Case – Hira Nath v Principal
In this case, it was held that this principle is not restricted to the
mainly formal evidence but any information regarding previous
conviction on which court may rely without giving a chance to the
affected party to deny it.

 Cross examination
The court should not require to reveal the person concerned or
material to be taken against him, but an opportunity is provided
them to deny the evidence. The question arises that will witness
will be cross examined
Case – Kanungo & Co. v Collector of Customs [5]

In this case, the business property of a person was investigated

and some watches were seized by the police who was in power
under the Sea Customs Act. A person who gave the information
was not allowed for cross examination. The principle of natural
justice was not violated and the court held that principle of natural
justice does not allow the concerned person to cross examine
against the witness in the matter where goods are seized under the
Sea Custom Act.

 Legal Representation
Genuinely, the representation through a legal advisor in the
authoritative arbitration isn’t considered as an imperative piece of
the reasonable hearing. Be that as it may, in specific circumstances
in the event that the privilege to legal representation is not rejected
and at that point it adds up to infringement of natural justice.
Case – J.J Mody v State of Bombay and Krishna Chandra v Union
of India

In this case, it was held that refusal of legal representation

amounts to the violation of natural justice because the party was
not able to understand the rules of law effectively and they should
get a chance of being heard once again.

Exceptions

The rule of audi alteram partem is held inapplicable not by

method for a special case to “reasonable play in real life”, but since
nothing unjustifiable can be derived by not managing a chance to
present a case.

 Statutory exclusion
Natural justice is submitted by the Courts when the parent statutes
under which an action is made by the administration is quiet as to
its application. Exclusion to make reference to one side of hearing
in the statutory arrangement does not reject the hearing of the
other party.
Case – Maneka Gandhi versus Association of India, Karnataka
Public Service Commission versus B.M. Vijay Shankar and Ram
Krishna Verma versus Province of U.P.

A rule could be bar natural justice either explicitly or by necessary

implication.

However, such a rule might be tested under Article 14 so it ought

to be legitimate.

 Legislative function
There are certain circumstances in which hearing might be
prohibited. It is just that the activity of the Administrative being
referred to is authoritative and not regulatory in character.
Generally, an order which is of general nature is not applied to one
or more specified person and is regarded as legislative in nature.

Administrative activity, entire , isn’t liable to the guidelines of

natural justice. In light of the fact that these standards set out an
approach without reference to a specific person. On a similar
rationale, standards of natural justice can likewise be prohibited by
an arrangement of the Constitution too. The Indian Constitution
rejects the standards of natural justice in Art. 22, 31(A), (B), (C) and
311(2) as an issue of arrangement. However, if the legislative
exclusion is mainly concerned with arbitrary, unreasonable and
unfair, courts may cancel such a provision under Article 14 and
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

 Impractibility
The concept of natural justice is involved when it is practicable to
do so but it is not applied in the case where it is impracticable to
apply the rule and in such a situation it is excluded.

 Academic Evolution
Where nature of power are absolutely regulatory then no privilege
of hearing can be asserted.

Case – Jawaharlal Nehru University v. B.S. Narwal, B.S Narwal,

In this case, a student of Jawaharlal Nehru University was

expelled from the class because his academic performance was not
satisfactory and it was done without being given any pre
decisional hearing. The Supreme Court held that the idea of
academic adjudication seems to be negative. In this way, if the
skilled scholarly experts look at work crafted by student over some
duration and declare his work unacceptable, principle of natural
justice might be rejected.
 Inter-Disciplinary Action
The words like suspension etc. which is inter-disciplinary action in
such cases there is no need of the rule of natural justice.
Case – S.A. Khan v. State of Haryana

In this case, Mr. Khan was at the post of deputy inspector general
haryana and was IPS officer. He was suspended by the haryana
government because many complaints were made against him. He
filed a suit in the Supreme Court that he does not get an
opportunity of being heard. The Supreme Court held that
suspension was because of interdisciplinary approach and there is
no requirement of hearing once.

Conclusion
Rule of natural justice has advanced by human progress. It has not
developed from the Indian Constitution but rather from
humankind itself. Each individual has the privilege to talk and be
heard when charges are being put towards the person in question.
The Latin maxim, “Audi Alteram Partem” is the standard of
characteristic equity where each individual gets an opportunity of
being heard. The significance of a proverb itself says no individual
will be denounced unheard. Thus, judgement of a case will be not
given in the absence of another party. There are numerous
situations where this rule of natural justice is barred, and no
opportunity is given to the party of being heard. Natural justice
implies that equity ought to be given to both parties in a simple,
reasonable and sensible way. Under the watchful eye of the Court,
both the parties are equivalent and have an equivalent chance to
speak and to prove themselves.
Q.4) Explain in detail “Rule of Law?

 Ans:- Introduction :- The term ‘rule of law’ is derived from the

French word ‘le principe de legalite’ which means ‘the principle of
legality’.
 Rule of law, also known as supremacy of law, means that no one
(including government) is above the law.
 The rule of law is a legal principle that law should govern a
nation against arbitrary decisions by government officials.
Every person is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of law
irrespective of their position and rank.
Meaning :
A.V.Dicey writing at the end of Victorian age of laissez faire
propounded his thesis of rule of law . According to him the rule
of law meant “ No man is punishable or can be lawfully made to
suffer in body or goods except for the breach of law established
in the ordinary legal manner, before the ordinary courts of the
land Dicey attributed three meanings to rule of law thus:
1. Supremacy of law
2. Equality before law and
3. Predominance of legal spirit.
i) SUPREMACY OF LAW : According to Dicey this is “ the central and
most characteristic feature” of common law. No man is above law and
no man is punishable except for a distinct breach of law , established in
ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts. It is absence of wide
discretionary power and arbitrary power

ii)EQUALITY BEFORE LAW : Dicey said that there must be equality

before the law or the equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of
the land administered by the ordinary law courts. This he contrasted
with the French Droit administrative, under which the disputes with
public officers are decided by separate administrative courts.

iii)PREDOMINANCE OF LEGAL SPIRIT : The third pillar of Dicey’s

concept of Rule of Law is predominance of legal spirit.
According to Dicey, for the prevalence of the rule of law there should be
an enforcing authority and that authority he found in the courts.
He believed that the courts are the enforcers of the rule of law and hence
it should be free from impartiality and external influence.
Independence of the judiciary is therefore an important pillar for the
existence of the rule of law.
Criticism :-
 Dicey has ignored the importance of the codification of laws.
 Codification of laws is important to ensure the rights of an
individual as it provides certainty, anything which is codified is
certain and thus, could be followed more effectively.
 He has misunderstood the concept of Droit administratif (the body
of rules which regulate the relations of the administration or of the
administrative authority towards private citizens).
 According to him, the system was designed to protect the officials
but in certain respects, it was specifically effective in controlling
the administration than the common law system.

Modern Concept of Rule of Law

 In today’s scenario, Dicey’s concept of Rule of Law is not
accepted in totality.
 The modern concept of the Rule of Law is fairly wide and
therefore it sets up an ideal for any Government to achieve.
 The modern idea of Rule of Law was formed by the International
Commission of Jurists, otherwise called the Delhi Declaration,
1959, which was later affirmed at Lagos in 1961.
 According to the Modern Concept, the ‘Rule of Law’ implies:
o Functions of the government in a free society should be so
exercised in which the dignity of a man as an individual
is upheld.
o Effective government capable of maintaining law and order.
o No arrest without the authority of law, Legal aid, public
trial and fair hearing and Presumption of Innocence.
o Independent Judiciary
 Thus, the rule of law in the modern sense ensures that there is
encouragement of political interest and where the criticism of the
government is not only permitted but also given a positive merit.

Rule of Law in India

 Constitution of India, 1950 is the law of the land and prevails
over the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive.
o These three organs of the state have to act according to the
principles engraved in the constitution.
 Under the Constitution, the rule of law is incorporated in many of
its provisions.
 Article 13 promotes the doctrine of Rule of Law in India.
o The “laws’’ defined under Article 13 as rules, regulations,
byelaws and ordinances can be struck down if they are
contrary to the constitution of India.
 Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before law and equal
protection of law.
o It states that no one shall be denied equality before the law
and the equal protection of the law by the state.
 In the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the
Supreme Court has included the Rule of Law as the basic feature
of the Constitution.
 In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, the SC in
clear words observed that Article 14 strikes arbitrariness in State
actions, ensures fairness and equality in treatment.
 Another significant derivative goof rule of law is judicial review.
o It is the power of the judiciary to examine
the constitutionality of legislative enactments and
executive orders of both the Central and State
governments.
 It not only protects constitutional principles but also checks
administrative actions and its legality.
o In the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the
power of judicial review was established by the Supreme
Court.
 The powers of judicial review are delegated to the High Courts
under Article 226 and Article 227 and to the Supreme Courts
under Article 32 and Article 136.

Case Laws
 ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)
o This case is also known as “Habeas Corpus case”. It is one of
the most important cases when it comes to rule of law.
o The question that was raised before the Hon’ble Court
was whether there was any rule of law in India apart
from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
DC Wadhva v. State of Bihar (1986)
o The SC used the rule of law to decry state
government which was too frequently using its ordinance
making power as a substitute of legislation by the legislature.
o The Court ruled that the re-promulgation of ordinances was
unconstitutional as the re-promulgation of the ordinances
for a period of one to fourteen years without going to the
legislation was a colourable exercise of power by the
executive.
 Yusuf Khan v. Manohar Joshi (2000)
o The SC has laid down the proposition that it is the duty of
the State to preserve and protect the laws and that it may
not permit any violent act, which may negate the rule of
law.
CONCLUSION :-
 The rule of law is a fundamental principle of democracy.
 It is a political and legal ideal that upholds the principle of "no one
is above the law".
 The rule of law is a cornerstone of most legal systems in the
world.
 The rule of law is essential for protecting basic political and civil
rights.
 The rule of law is essential for preventing the arbitrary use of
power by governments.

Q.5) Write a Short Notes?

A)OMBUDSMAN :
Meaning :
“ Ombudsman” means “ a delegate ,agent,officer or commissioner” A
precise definition of “Ombudsman” is not possible ,but Garner rightly
described his as “an officer of Parliament,having as his primary
function, the duty of acting as an agent of Parliament , for the purpose of
safeguarding citizens against abuse or misuse of administrative power
by the executive.”
The “ ombudsman “ is thus an official appointed to receive and
investigate complaints of citizens against the government and its
officers.
Importance :
He is not a super administrator to whom an individual can appeal when
he is dissatisfied with the discretionary decision of a public official in the
hope that he may obtain a more favourable decision. His primary
function is to investigate allegations of maladministration.
Historical Growth :
This institution originated in Sweden in 1809 and it has been accepted in
other countries including Denmark,Finland,New Zealand ,England
(Parlimentary Commissioner) ,Australia and India (Lokpal &
Lokayukta)
Powers & Dutie :
The ombudsman enquires and investigates into complaints made by
citizens against abuse of discretionary power ,maladministration or
administrative inefficiency and take appropriate actions. For that
purpose ,very wide powers are conferred on him. He has access to
departmental files. The complainant is not required to lead any evidence
before the Ombudsman to prove his case. It is the function and duty of
the ombudsman to satisfy himself whether or not the complaint was
justified. He can even act suo motu. He can grant relief to the aggrieved
person as unlike the powers of a civil court his powers are limited.
Status :
The status of the ombudsman may be ascertained and summarised as
under:
1.Ombudsman is a judge or a lawyer or high officer with
unchallengeable charater , reputation and integrity.
2.ombudsman is appointed by Parliament and he is above party politics
with ability to think and decide objectively.
3.Ombudsman is not disturbed by any interference even by Parliament
in discharge of his duties.
4.Ombudsman reports to the Parliament the reactions of the citizens
against the administration along with his own recommendation to
eradicate the cause of complaints.
5.Ombudsman is considered as “watch-dog” or “ public safety value”
against administration and he is also considered as “protector of the
little man”.
Defects:
There are some arguments against setting up of the office of the
ombudsman .
1.It is argued that, success of the institution of Ombudsman in the
country like Sweden is not due to the merit of the institution of
ombudsman, but mainly due to the personality of the first ombudsman
Professor Hurwitz, who had taken keen interest in the complaints
personally with the prompt investigation.
2.If the number of such ombudsman is more, in other words, if there are
number of officers appointed as ombudsman then the prestige and
personal contact will be affected.
3.If a single officer is appointed as ombudsman and he is required to
depend upon a large number of subordinate staff then also the personal
contact and prestige will be affected
4.The institution of ombudsman may prove successful in the countries
having small population,compaired to other countries like india because
less population will have less complaints and to deal with less
complaints is easy to dispose of.
5.According to Mukharjee J is of the view of that the institution of
ombudsman is an impracticable and disastrous experiment which does
not fie into Indian Constitution.
Conclusion:
In the democratic setup it is the duly to provide adequate means
for the redressal of grievances of the citizens against the injustice caused
to them due to abuse or misuse of discretionary powers,
maladministration or administrative insufficiency.
The present courts are overburdened to deal with all cases of
injustices, therefore it is felt necessary that, an institution of ombudsman
would prove as a substantial help in doing full and complete chance to
the citizen, who are aggrieved due to abuse of discretionary powers mal-
administration etc.

B)P & O Steam Navigation co V/s Secretary of State for India (1861)
Name of the case
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of
State for India.
Equivalent Citation
(1861) 5 Bom. H.C.R. App. I,p.1
Bench
Peacock C.J, Jackson J, Wells J
Relevant Section
Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858
Relevant Act
Government of India Act, 1858.
Facts of the Case
In the course of their employment, a servant of the plaintiff Company
was travelling from Garden Beach in Calcutta in an exceeding carriage
pulled by a pair of horses belonging to the plaintiff and driven by the
coachman. While the bus was travelling by Kidderpore Dockyard, which
may be a government dockyard overseen by the Superintendent of
Marine, certain government employees were riveting a piece of iron
funnel casing. It weighed around 300 kilogrammes, was eight or nine
feet long, and stood about two feet tall. The lads carrying the cargo
walked along the centre of the road. The coachman issued a warning to
the youngsters carrying the iron. The lads sought to induce their way
out of the way, those ahead trying to go to one side, and those behind
attempted to travel to the opposite side. As a result of this, you lost time,
which caused the carriage to stop for them, even though they had left
the centre of the road.
They were startled by the carriage’s proximity and abruptly dropped the
iron and ran. The iron landed with a respectable clap, which roused the
aggrieved party’s ponies, who rushed forward savagely and fell on the
iron, injuring at least one pony. The action was launched by the injured
party Company to recuperate Rs. 350/ – due to the injury, and the
lawsuit against the Secretary of State was afterwards brought on the
basis that a government worker concluded the irresponsible exhibition.
Issues Before the Court
 Whether or not the Company’s actions fall inside the purview of
the State’s sovereign powers?
 What was the East India Company’s overall risk for the
complicated demonstrations of its personnel submitted in the
course of their work?
 Whether the Secretary of State was liable for the damage caused by
the government’s carelessness. servants, supposing they were
guilty of such carelessness?
Ratio Decidendi
 Where a protest is carried out in the exercise of sovereign forces,
there will be opposition, and no activity will take place. However,
because the East India Company had a twofold restriction and
were at once truly trading for their own and were that preoccupied
with trades halfway for state requirements and partly for their
own, they may be held liable for the unfair demonstration of any
of their employees if such conduct occurred during the course of
an exchange unrelated to the exercise of sovereign powers.
 Given the facts of this case, the workers employed by the
government at the dockyard were not performing any activity
within the scope of sovereign forces, but the demonstration was
the culmination of an endeavor that could be carried out by a non-
open individual without having sovereign forces assigned to him,
to which the archipelago Company would be obligated. As a
result, the Secretary of State for India was also to blame for the
reckless demonstrations of its personnel.
 Mishaps like these, when caused by the negligence of government
employees, the Malay Archipelago Company, would be
susceptible, and a similar risk is attached to the Secretary of State.
Judgment
The plaintiffs contend that the Secretary of State was given the benefit of
the doubt. Furthermore, the East India Company was not the sovereign,
although having some royal powers granted to them, and hence could
not claim immunity in every instance.