Unit IV — Judicial Review, Writs & State Liability

“Mandamus will issue to compel the performance of a public duty owed to the petitioner — but it will not lie to direct an authority how to exercise a genuine discretion.” — the scope of mandamus

Judicial Review of Discretion & the Writs

Judicial review controls both the existence and the exercise of administrative discretion. Discretion is bad if it is not exercised at all (sub-delegation, acting under dictation, non-application of mind, acting on a fixed/self-imposed policy) or abused (mala fides, irrelevant considerations, improper purpose, unreasonableness — Wednesbury — and proportionality). The Constitution provides the remedies through the writs under Article 32 (Supreme Court) and Article 226 (High Courts — wider, available against any person/authority and for any legal right).

Mandamus requires a legal right in the petitioner, a corresponding public/statutory duty, and (usually) a demand and refusal. It will not lie to enforce a private/contractual duty, to compel a discretionary act, or to direct how discretion is exercised (Praga Tools v. C.V. Imanual; Comptroller & Auditor General v. K.S. Jagannathan).

Government Contracts & Liability of the State

flowchart TD
    A["State LIABILITY"]:::root
    A --> B["In CONTRACT — Article 299"]:::leaf
    B --> B1["(i) in the President's/Governor's name<br/>(ii) executed by an authorised person<br/>(iii) expressed to be made by the President/Governor"]:::sub
    A --> C["In TORT"]:::leaf
    C --> C1["Sovereign functions -> immunity<br/>(Kasturilal, 1965 — now diluted)"]:::sub
    C --> C2["Non-sovereign functions -> liable<br/>(P&O; Vidhyawati, 1962)"]:::sub
    C --> C3["CONSTITUTIONAL TORT — Art. 21<br/>(Rudul Sah; Nilabati Behera)"]:::sub

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef sub fill:#EFEFEF,stroke:#555,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

A government contract is enforceable only if it satisfies the mandatory requirements of Article 299(1): made in the name of the President/Governor, executed by a duly authorised person, and expressed to be made by the President/Governor. A contract not in this form is void and unenforceable (K.P. Chowdhry v. State of M.P.), though quantum meruit may give restitution. For tort, the old sovereign/non-sovereign distinction (P&O Steam Navigation) gave immunity for sovereign functions in Kasturilal v. State of U.P. (1965) — but Kasturilal is diluted and distinguished (notably N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P., 1994) though not formally overruled, and it has no application to fundamental-rights breaches, where the constitutional tort (Rudul Sah, Nilabati Behera) gives compensation under Arts. 32/226.

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: The Cane Commissioner, empowered to reserve sugarcane areas for sugar factories, at the dictation of the Chief Minister excludes 90 villages from the area he had earlier reserved. Is the action valid?

I — Issue

Whether discretion vested in one authority is validly exercised when it is exercised under the dictation of another.

R — Rule

Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji (1952) — where a statute vests discretion in a named authority, that authority must apply its own mind and exercise its own judgment; acting under the dictation of a superior or outsider is a failure to exercise the discretion the law entrusted to it, and the order is void.

A — Analysis

The decoy is hierarchy — the Chief Minister is senior to the Commissioner, so following his instruction may look like proper administrative obedience. But the statute deliberately entrusted the reservation decision to the Cane Commissioner precisely so that he would weigh the competing claims of growers and factories. When he simply carries out the CM’s direction, the statutory discretion is exercised by the wrong mind; the Commissioner has abdicated the very judgment the Act demanded of him. It is immaterial that the CM is superior — even a lawful superior cannot supply the discretion the legislature placed elsewhere.

C — Conclusion

The exclusion is void for acting under dictation. The Cane Commissioner must decide the reservation afresh on his own independent assessment, uninfluenced by the Chief Minister’s direction.

📄 The full bundle (₹199) has the complete Unit IV — all grounds of judicial review, abuse and non-exercise of discretion, each writ in detail (including a standalone mandamus answer), Article 299 and the whole law of State liability — plus the Question Bank’s model answers to 12 solved problems (dictation, mala fides, PIL, Art. 299, sovereign-immunity claims). Get Notes + Question Bank — ₹199