Case: Sadhu Singh Vs. Delhi Administration

action unless he has reasonable ground for believing something he can only arrive at that belief by a course of conduct analogous to the judicial process. And yet unless that proposition is valid, there is really no ground for holding that the controller is acting judicially or quasi judicially when he acts under this regulation. If he is not under a duty so to act then it would not be according to law that his decision should be amenable to review and, if necessary, to avoidance by the procedure of certiorari." and held that certiorari did not lie in the case. The Judicial Committee then quoted the passage already set out from the judgments of Atkin, L. J., in 1924-1 KB 171, and of Lord Hewart, C. J., in 1928-1 KB 411, and observed that, "It is that characteristic that the controller lacks in acting under regulation 62". 15. In Nakkuda Alis case, 1951 AC 66, the Controller was prima facie dealing with a case in which the rights of a person were to be determined, but the Judicial Committee was of the view that the statute in the particular case did not require the Controller to act judicially. There is undoubtedly a clear distinction between cases in which an authority is invested with power to determine the rights of a person, and cases in which the authority is invested with power to act in a certain matter, and the exercise of that power affects the rights of a person. In the former, the duty to act judicially may readily be inferred. But whether a public authority invested with powers to pass a specified order is required to act judicially must depend upon the scheme of the statute which invests him with that power. The nature of the authority conferred, the procedure prescribed and the nature of the powers exercised will determine the question whether the public authority is required to act judicially; it is not, however, predicated that before a writ of certiorari or prohibition may issue the duty to act judicially must be expressly or independently imposed upon the authority called upon to determine the rights of a citizen. In the view of the Judicial Committee."if the mere requirement that the Controller must have reasonable grounds of belief is insufficient to oblige him to act judicially, there is nothing else in the context or conditions of his jurisdiction that suggests that he must regulate his action by analogy of judicial rules." The scheme of the Regulation, therefore, negatived according to Judicial Committee, a judicial approach. 16. I am not concerned in this case with the validity of the criticism by Lord Reid of the two decisions. It is sufficient to state for the purpose of this case that there is no principle or binding authority in support of the view that wherever a public authority is invested with power to make a order which prejudicially affects the rights of an individual, whatever may be the nature of the power exercised, whatever may be the procedure prescribed, and whatever may be the nature of the authority conferred, the proceeding of the public authority must be regulated by the analogy of rules governing judicial determination of disputed questions. 17. The alternative contention that the use of the word "decide" in R. 30-A (8) compels a judicial approach cannot also be sustained. As pointed out by Fazl Ali, J., in Advanis case, at p. 642 (of SCR): (at p. 229 of AIR):"The word decision in common parlance is more or less a neutral expression and it can be used with reference to purely executive acts as well as judicial orders. The mere fact that an executive authority has to decide something does not make the decision judicial. It is the manner in which the decision has to be arrived at which makes the difference, and the real test is: is there any duty to decide judicially?" Rule 30-A (8) requires the Administrator to review at intervals of not more than six months the detention order and then to decide upon such review whether the order be continued or cancelled. That only imports that the Administrator after reviewing the material circumstances has to decide whether the detention of the detenu should be continued or cancelled. Undoubtedly, in reviewing the order of detention the Administrator would be taking into account all the relevant circumstances existing at the time when the order was made, the subsequent developments which have a bearing on the detention of the detenu and the representation, if any, made by the detenu. But the rule contemplates review of the detention order and in the exercise of a power to review a condition of a judicial approach is not implied. 18. Counsel for the petitioner said that the order of the Administrator, dated February 24, 1965 was invalid, because the Administrator had reviewed the order confirming the order of detention and not the order of detention. In the preamble clause there is a reference to a "report for review of the order, dated the 5th September, 1964 confirming the detention order" of the petitioner. But it is difficult to divorce the order of detention from the order of confirmation, for without confirmation the order of detention would have no legal sustenance. The Rule provides that the order of detention shall forthwith be reported, if made by an officer empowered by the Administrator, to the Administrator and that the Administrator shall, after taking into account all the circumstances of the case, either confirm the detention order or cancel it. It is pursuant to the detention order so confirmed that a person remains detained, and the review which is intended to be made under R. 30-A (8) is of that order which is confirmed. The second paragraph of the order of the Administrator makes it clear that the detention order of the petitioner shall continue and that detention order is clearly the order made by the District Magistrate and confirmed by the Administrator.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]16. I am not concerned in this case with the validity of the criticism by Lord Reid of the two decisions. It is sufficient to state for the purpose of this case that there is no principle or binding authority in support of the view that wherever a public authority is invested with power to make a order which prejudicially affects the rights of an individual, whatever may be the nature of the power exercised, whatever may be the procedure prescribed, and whatever may be the nature of the authority conferred, the proceeding of the public authority must be regulated by the analogy of rules governing judicial determination of disputed questions17. The alternative contention that the use of the word "decide" in R. 30-A (8) compels a judicial approach cannot also be sustained. As pointed out by Fazl Ali, J., in Advanis case, at p. 642 (of SCR): (at p. 229 of AIR):"The word decision in common parlance is more or less a neutral expression and it can be used with reference to purely executive acts as well as judicial orders. The mere fact that an executive authority has to decide something does not make the decision judicial. It is the manner in which the decision has to be arrived at which makes the difference, and the real test is: is there any duty to decide judicially?"Rule 30-A (8) requires the Administrator to review at intervals of not more than six months the detention order and then to decide upon such review whether the order be continued or cancelled. That only imports that the Administrator after reviewing the material circumstances has to decide whether the detention of the detenu should be continued or cancelled. Undoubtedly, in reviewing the order of detention the Administrator would be taking into account all the relevant circumstances existing at the time when the order was made, the subsequent developments which have a bearing on the detention of the detenu and the representation, if any, made by the detenu. But the rule contemplates review of the detention order and in the exercise of a power to review a condition of a judicial approach is not implied. But itis difficult to divorce the order of detention from the order of confirmation, for without confirmation the order of detention would have no legal sustenance. The Rule provides that the order of detention shall forthwith be reported, if made by an officer empowered by the Administrator, to the Administrator and that the Administrator shall, after taking into account all the circumstances of the case, either confirm the detention order or cancel it. It is pursuant to the detention order so confirmed that a person remains detained, and the review which is intended to be made under R. 30-A (8) is of that order which is confirmed. The second paragraph of the order of the Administrator makes it clear that the detention order of the petitioner shall continue and that detention order is clearly the order made by the District Magistrate and confirmed by the Administrator.