Case: Royal Medical Trust Vs. Union Of India

decision, but with the decision-making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will in my view, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power."45. In the said case, the Court also referred to R. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex. P. Datafin plc, (1987) 1 All ER 564 wherein Sir John Donaldson, M.R. commented:-"An application for judicial review is not an appeal."46. The three Judge Bench further held:-"The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be:1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers?2. Committed an error of law,3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or,5. abused its powers."47. The Court further opined that in the process of judicial review, it is only concerned with the manner in which the decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty is to act fairly. It will vary from case to case. Explicating further, it ruled:-"Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under:(i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness.(iii) Procedural impropriety.The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, "consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention".48. Thereafter, the Court referred to the authorities in R. v. Askew, (1768) 4 Burr 2186 : 98 ER 139 and Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service, (1985) 1 AC 374 : (1984) 3 All ER 935 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 and further expressed:-"At this stage, The Supreme Court Practice, 1993, Vol. 1, pp. 849-850, may be quoted: "4. Wednesbury principle.- A decision of a public authority will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings where the court concludes that the decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it. (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., per Lord Greene, M.R.)"We may hasten to add, though the decision was rendered in the context of justification of grant of contract but the principles set out as regards the judicial review are of extreme significance.49. Discussing at length, the principle of judicial review in many a decision, the two Judge Bench in Reliance Telecom Ltd. & Another v. Union of India & Another, (2017) 4 SCC 269 , has held:-"As we find, the decision taken by the Central Government is based upon certain norms and parameters. Though criticism has been advanced that it is perverse and irrational, yet we are disposed to think that it is a policy decision which subserves the consumers interest. It is extremely difficult to say that the decision to conduct the auction in such a manner can be considered to be mala fide or based on extraneous considerations."50. Thus analysed, it is evincible that the exercise of power of judicial review and the extent to which it has to be done will vary from case to case. It is necessary to state with emphasis that it has its own complexity and would depend upon the factual projection. The broad principles have been laid down in Tata Cellular (supra) and other decisions make it absolutely clear that judicial review, by no stretch of imagination, can be equated with the power of appeal, for while exercising the power under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution, the constitutional courts do not exercise such power. The process of adjudication on merit by re-appreciation of the materials brought on record which is the duty of the appellate court is not permissible.51. The duty of the Court in exercise of the power of judicial review to zealously guard the human rights, fundamental rights and the citizens right of life and liberty as also many non-statutory powers of governmental bodies as regards their control over property and assets of various kinds. (See : Union of India and Anr. v S.B. Vohra, 2004(1) S.C.T 788 : (2004) 2 SCC 150)52. What Dr. Dhawan submits basically is that as the order passed by the Central Government after the order passed by the High Court of Kerala does not really reflect any reason, this Court should axe the same treating it as arbitrary and grant the LOP and that would be within the power of judicial review. The order passed by the Central Government has to be appreciated in its entirety. We repeat at the cost of repetition that neither the Central Government nor the Hearing Committee is expected to pass a judgment as a Judge is expected to do. The order must reflect application of mind and should indicate reasons. We may reiterate that the order dated 31st May, 2017, was bereft of reason, but the order impugned, that is the order dated 14th August, 2017, cannot be said to be sans reason. Learned senior counsel would contend with all the vigour at his command that it is not a reasoned one and for the same our attention has been drawn to the penultimate paragraph of the order.53. We are of the considered opinion that the order of the present nature has to be appreciated in entirety and when we peruse the entire order, we find that substantial reasons have been ascribed and, therefore, we are compelled to repel the submissions so assiduously and astutely advanced by Dr. Dhawan.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]33. Thus, in our considered opinion what has been stated in Royal Medical Trust (supra) and IQ City Foundation (supra) has the precedential value under Article 141 of the Constitution. We have no hesitation in saying that the pronouncement in Kanachur Islamic Education Trust (R) (supra) has to rest on its own facts.The aforesaid decisions speak for themselves and, therefore, reliance on the same by the petitioners is of noare absolutely conscious of the appellate jurisdiction and the jurisdiction this Court is required to exercise while determining the controversy in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution. The principle of judicial review by the constitutional courts have been lucidly stated in many an authority of thismay hasten to add, though the decision was rendered in the context of justification of grant of contract but the principles set out as regards the judicial review are of extreme significance.Thus analysed, it is evincible that the exercise of power of judicial review and the extent to which it has to be done will vary from case to case. It is necessary to state with emphasis that it has its own complexity and would depend upon the factual projection. The broad principles have been laid down in Tata Cellular (supra) and other decisions make it absolutely clear that judicial review, by no stretch of imagination, can be equated with the power of appeal, for while exercising the power under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution, the constitutional courts do not exercise such power. The process of adjudication on merit byof the materials brought on record which is the duty of the appellate court is not permissible.51. The duty of the Court in exercise of the power of judicial review to zealously guard the human rights, fundamental rights and the citizens right of life and liberty as also manypowers of governmental bodies as regards their control over property and assets of various kinds.t Dr. Dhawan submits basically is that as the order passed by the Central Government after the order passed by the High Court of Kerala does not really reflect any reason, this Court should axe the same treating it as arbitrary and grant the LOP and that would be within the power of judicial review. The order passed by the Central Government has to be appreciated in its entirety. We repeat at the cost of repetition that neither the Central Government nor the Hearing Committee is expected to pass a judgment as a Judge is expected to do. The order must reflect application of mind and should indicate reasons. We may reiterate that the order dated 31st May, 2017, was bereft of reason, but the order impugned, that is the order dated 14th August, 2017, cannot be said to be sans reason. Learned senior counsel would contend with all the vigour at his command that it is not a reasoned one and for the same our attention has been drawn to the penultimate paragraph of the order.We are of the considered opinion that the order of the present nature has to be appreciated in entirety and when we peruse the entire order, we find that substantial reasons have been ascribed and, therefore, we are compelled to repel the submissions so assiduously and astutely advanced by Dr. Dhawan.