CONTROLS OVER ADMINISTRATIVE

DISCRETION: A CASE LAW STUDY IN THE

CONTEXT OF PAKISTAN
Bakht Munir, Ali Nawaz Khan & Naveed Ahmad*

Abstract
With the evolution of modern welfare state, state functionaries have to perform
numerous functions and discretion has to be accepted as a necessary evil. In order to
avoid misuse of authority, a mechanism of legislative, administrative, and judicial
controls have been devised. With the help of qualitative research methodology, this
research aims to investigate how to keep control over the administrative actions
without creating hindrance for the state officials in performance of their duties.
Despite the fact that there are two competing views regarding conferring of discretion,
the same could be adjusted with the help of reasonable controls at various stages: pre-
conferment and post-conferment, which can be further categorized into legislative,
administrative, and judicial controls. Nevertheless, these controls have to be exercised
with utmost diligence so as to avoid apprehension of interbranch conflict and to
ensure smooth functioning of the executive authorities.

Keywords: Checks on discretion, Discretionary control, Safeguards and

controls of discretion

Introduction

D iscretion, being an inevitable tool for good governance, means choice of

alternatives available with administrative authorities in the performance
of their functions. With the development of the concept of modern
welfare state and multiplication of state functions, wide discretionary powers
have been conferred on the administration to address the ever growing complex
problems of present era. To avoid abuse of power being granted by legislature
various principles and controls for the exercise of administrative discretion have
been established. The enlargement of state functions opened a new debate
about the conferring of discretion. One school of thought is of the view that the
discretion should be granted generously to the public functionaries because of
their diversified duties which cannot be performed in the absence of optimum
discretion. On the other hand, the other school of thought is not inclined to
grant wide discretionary powers to the administration; reason being the abuse

*
Dr. Bakht Munir Visiting Faculty: University Law College, University of the Punjab, Lahore,
Pakistan (bakht.law@pu.edu.pk). Mr. Ali Nawaz Khan is Assistant Professor: University Law
College, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan (alinawaz.law@pu.edu.pk). Dr. Naveed
Ahmad is Assistant Professor: University Law College, University of the Punjab, Lahore,
Pakistan (naveed.law@pu.edu.pk).

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

 2 BAKHT MUNIR, ALI NAWAZ KHAN & NAVEED AHMAD

of such powers. However, both the schools agree that discretion is to be allowed
even though as a necessary evil. Furthermore, the two extremes can be adjusted
by granting discretion subject to certain controls, i.e., legislative, administrative
and judicial.
In order to conduct this research, qualitative research methodology has
been applied wherein both primary and secondary sources have been consulted.
Data has been collected from various sources such as books, case laws, research
articles, statutes, previously unpublished LL.M. thesis of the principal author,
and online databases. Considering time and other constraints, scope of the
research is confined to India and Pakistan as both countries have inherited same
administrative fabric from the British. The operational framework of the
research has been broadly categorized into the following three segments: in first
segment, an overview to the inevitability of administrative discretion and
necessity to regulate its exercise is given. In second segment, controlling
mechanism for the exercise of discretionary powers has been explicated wherein
legislative, administrative, and judicial controls have been examined with the
help of judicial precedents. In last segment, the research has been concluded
with the findings that discretion is an unavoidable evil, which has to be
accepted at any cost and could be properly regulated by subjecting it to certain
controls.

Legislative Control
The legislative body conferring discretion may itself lay down
accountability mechanism through various degrees of control for the exercise of
discretion in selecting a course of action. In a parliamentary form of
government, the executive is kept under an obligation to give an account of its
performance to the parliament.1 Legislature, thus, not only controls the
delegation of powers, but also puts the executive under its check and control in
the exercise of administrative powers. In this kind of control the degree of
discretion is restricted by law itself so far as possible. So, the executive has to
perform their functions within the prescribed skeleton of authority granted by
the legislature. The legislature while delegating discretionary powers to the
executive authorities uses words like may, might, will, etc., meaning thereby to
give discretion to the public authorities in their dealings with public at large.
But, the discretion so granted is never uncontrolled and arbitrary; the
authorities are expected to apply their judicial mind in the exercise of these
discretionary powers.
The nature of these expressions is not obligatory rather it is on the option
of the authorities to use such powers. But, if the official is authorized to
discharge functions at his choice in a positive sense, then it can be construed as
imposing an obligation to perform accordingly. Moreover, if the discretionary
power is conferred upon a public authority with an obligation under the law, it

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

CONTROLS OVER ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION 3

is also to be deemed as an obligation of the public authorities to exercise such

power. Meaning thereby, these expressions convey discretionary use of certain
powers only in exceptional circumstances but generally the exercise of these
powers is considered mandatory in the context of relevant provisions and the
nature of duty contained there-under.
The authority in whom discretion is vested, exercises the same without any
directions but it is expected under the law that the authority shall not exercise
discretion in arbitrary and capricious manner. The authority granted under the
statute is to be exercised to advance the cause of justice and not the vice versa.
Hence, the exercise of discretionary power is not merely optional but it is the
duty of such person to act in the manner as provided under the law. As far as
the manner of exercising such discretion is concerned, no particular mode has
been provided by the statute and the administrative authority is bound to
exercise discretion within the parameters of reasonability. The unreasonable
exercise of such powers is not immune from judicial review of the Superior
Courts.
In a case2, the appellant imported gold in personal baggage which was
confiscated by the Custom Authorities. It was restricted for registered person or
a company to regulate its import and business in local market but its import by
unregistered person neither debarred the Customs Authorities from using the
discretionary power, nor the legislature by using the word 'may' intended to give
unbridled power to the Customs Authorities to act entirely in their own
wisdom. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and thereby set aside the
Judgment passed by the High Court. Furthermore, the matter was remanded to
Collector for the consideration of the redemption of goods in lieu of payment of
fine.
Administrative Control
In cases, where legislature does not impose limits on the executive officers
for the smooth exercise of administrative discretion and to counter
maladministration, a rules-mechanism can be established by delegated
legislation where the administration channelizes the broad stream of its
statutory discretion into narrow streams limiting its own freedom of action by
following ways: by laying down certain parameters and guidelines to exercise
discretionary powers, the grounds on which the public officials make their
decisions exercising discretionary powers, the procedure to exercise discretion
by the public authorities under the statute, and the procedure to control abuse
of discretion by public officials. The whole process is to ensure proper and
uniform application of power minimizing its chance of being abused, especially,
when a number of parallel and co-equal administrative authorities have to deal
with the nature of cases arising under a particular scheme. 3
The complex bureaucratic fabric inevitably causes many grievances and
complaints while administering plethora of services. Unlike courts, when a

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

 4 BAKHT MUNIR, ALI NAWAZ KHAN & NAVEED AHMAD

government department has acted mala fide or misled the complainant or

delayed his case or treated him badly, a statutory tribunal will be able to
accommodate him both cheaply and informally. However, there are large
number of grievances which fit into none of the regular legal systems. A
humane system of government must provide some way of it for the proper
administration of justice in a more expeditious, cheaper and reasonable manner.
To put the parliament in motion or initiate a special inquiry is quite difficult,
unreasonable and expensive way. So, Parliamentary Commissioner for
Administration (ombudsman) was devised for proper and effective
administration.4
In Pakistan, replica of office of ombudsman is Wafaqi Mohtasib with same
functions, powers, and duties. In a case 5, it was observed that neither the
Supreme Court nor the High Court, in ordinary course, undertakes to supervise
or control administrative matters; a high level and substantially reliable
mechanism is available, i.e., the Ombudsman, for this purpose. In another
case6, the court observed that to undo the administrative excesses within the
administration, making justice available to the wronged person, is the object of
establishing the office of the Wafaqi Mohtasib. In another case7, ombudsman
gave an order to the Federal Public Service Commission to appoint/consider a
successful appointee to a post under the Federal Government and the President
set aside the orders of the Ombudsman in representation filed by the
government. The Lahore High Court reviewed and set aside the orders of the
president in writ jurisdiction and upheld the orders of the Ombudsman. The
Supreme Court also upheld the judgment of the High Court, and further
elaborated that the President should assign reasons in his orders. In a case8, the
complainant denied the service of notice served on him being forged. The
signatures on the Returns and other documents in Urdu showed that the
assessee was hardly literate. Whereas, notice bore the signature in English as
acknowledgement of receipts, which seemed to be clearly forged with bad and
improper motive which frustrated the entire proceedings. The entire action
suffered from malice, bad faith and mala fide resulting in fraud on both, the
statute and the complainant. In like circumstances, the Federal Tax
Ombudsman had jurisdiction to investigate into the matter and to provide relief
according to law, canceled the impugned order in respect of the assessment
years and also gave directions for disciplinary action against the notice server
for the forged signatures of the complainant.

Judicial Control of Administrative Discretion

The concept of separation of powers bars the organs of the state to interfere
in spheres of the other organs. Generally, the courts do not probe into the
decisions of administrative authorities in exercise of their discretion. The
absolute separation of powers would lead to a situation where an organ can

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

CONTROLS OVER ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION 5

become despotic in its nature and functions. So, the constitutionalist

introduced a parallel concept of checks and balances whereby an organ of the
state is being reasonably checked by the other. So, under this concept the courts
exercise their powers to review the actions of the administrative authorities on
certain touchstones giving rise to the concept of Judicial Review. Furthermore,
the emergence of the concept of welfare state make’ it necessary to vest certain
powers in the courts to stop the abuse of wide ranging discretionary powers
held by the public authorities. In Pakistan, powers are granted to the High
Courts and the Supreme Court under Article 199 and Article 184(3) of the
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 respectively, as a safeguard against the abuse of
powers and injustices committed by the administrative authorities. Judicial
Review upholds the supremacy of the constitution and protects the
fundamental rights of the citizens.
The Superior Courts can issue the following orders against the public
functionaries: Mandamus; an order to public functionary to do or refrain from
doing an act which that body is obliged under law to do or forbear from doing,
as the case may be. Prohibition; it is an order to public official to stop him from
taking an unlawful action. Certiorari; it is an order to declare the illegal action of
a public authority null and void. Quo Warranto; it is an order to question
authority of a public office holder and to declare the office vacant if not lawfully
appointed or qualified. Habeas Corpus; it is an order to a public authority or a
private person to recover a person from unlawful custody.
In a case9, it was held that to protect the rights of the citizens and to draw a
balanced and rational compromise, between the rights of the citizens and the
actions of the public functionaries, is obligation of the Superior Courts. The
Supreme Court observed that the very concept of fundamental rights is that
these rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the same cannot be taken
away by the law. These rights impose restrictions on the legislative and
executive organs of the state and in case of any divergence the person who feels
aggrieved of the same can go for judicial dispensation. 10 In another case11, the
Lahore High Court explained that object, scope, and purpose of fundamental
rights guaranteed by Constitution lay down a very broad concept of liberty of an
individual which demands a very high level of respect and observance of such
rights from the State and its functionaries. The fundamental rights thus provide
a basis to the judiciary in Pakistan to control administrative discretion to a large
extent. However, problems may arise in adjudication of the validity of a law
conferring discretion on the administration. For this purpose, the courts look
into substantive as well as procedural aspects of the law in question. The former
part is examined to see whether the discretion conferred is within the
permissible limits, and the later part is examined to see whether there are
necessary safeguards subject to which discretion is to be exercised. The law can
be declared unconstitutional if it is defiant in either of the two cases.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

 6 BAKHT MUNIR, ALI NAWAZ KHAN & NAVEED AHMAD

Inevitability of grant of administrative discretion to the administrative

authorities has led to the abuse of discretion which always needs to be checked
by courts for an efficacious state machinery to redress public grievances against
government officials. Courts generally review the orders of administrative
authorities on the following grounds:
Mala Fide. It means dishonest intention or corrupt motive. Public authority is
required to act according to law, fair play, justice and equity. They should try to
avoid doubts about their decisions. An action is mala fide if it is contrary to the
purpose for which it was authorized to be exercised.12 It must not appear that
their action is based on dishonest intention, ulterior motive or personal ill will,
all of which constitute mala fide. It may be difficult to determine whether or not
the authority has exceeded its powers in a particular case because of the broad
terms in which the statute in question may have conferred powers on the
administrative authority. It is difficult for an individual to collect sufficient
evidence as he has no access to the government record. However, as mentioned
above, the course of events, public utterances of the authority, statement in the
pleadings or affidavits, filed by the authority, failure to file the affidavits denying
the allegations, etc, may lead to the establishment of the charge of mala fide.
In a case13, the candidate failed in two papers applied for rechecking of her
papers. She was informed that marks had been correctly awarded. The Vice-
chancellor ordered re-evaluation of said papers on candidate’s request naming
one examiner in his order after whose report the same was sent to another one
for re-examination of the papers but did not name the other examiner. Such
exercise did not appear to be honest, bona fide and transparent. Moreover,
there was some unexplained tampering in answer books. Either, vice-chancellor
should have named two examiners simultaneously, or should have accepted
report of the named examiner in whose estimation papers were not correctly
marked. The candidate was entitled to more marks which entitled her to pass
the examination.
Mala fide can be of any of the following forms: Without Jurisdiction, mala
fide act is by its nature an action without jurisdiction.14 No legislature while
granting power to take action or pass an order, contemplates mala fide exercise
of power. A Fraud on the Statute, mala fide act is a fraud on the statute and it is
an order which is passed not for the purpose contemplated by the enactment. 15
Following Manner not required by Law, a thing required to be done in a
particular manner must be done accordingly or not at all. And doing something
which is in conflict with that would not only be unlawful but mala fide. 16 Latent
Defect of Jurisdiction, mala fide is a latent lack of jurisdiction because a mala
fide action stands lawful unless challenged by so many words and proved by
cogent evidence. It is one of the grounds of ultra vires but “ultra vires” is wider
than a mere mala fide.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

CONTROLS OVER ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION 7

Improper Purpose and Colourable Exercise of Power. Improper purpose

means the public authority has used the power conferred for a purpose not
contemplated by law. It also means to use authority for a purpose alien to law.
In a case17, the Court observed that improper purpose may be based on honest
as well as dishonest intention. In this context, improper purpose is broader than
mala fide as. It is also a good ground of Judicial Review because public servant is
bound to follow the law in letter and spirit and is not allowed by the legislature
to define purpose of law even for public interest.
Colourable exercise means under the ‘colour’ or ‘guise’ of power conferred
for one purpose, the authority is seeking to achieve something else which it is
not authorized to do under the law in question. In a case 18, the Court has
remarked that colourable means when the power is exercised apparently for the
authorized ends but really to achieve some other purpose. In a case 19, Nagpur
municipality acquired property at its own expenses. Later on, it was discovered
that a trust needed the property and the same had borne the expenses. The
court held that it was colourable exercise of power. In another case 20, the
government issued notification to acquire property for public purpose but it was
actually to be acquired for a company. So, company was not a public purpose
and consequently the order was quashed.
Ultra Vires Exercise of Power. Where the authority being vested with the
discretionary power does not exercise the power but sub-delegates it to
subordinate authority. Similarly, where the designated authority does not
consider the matter itself but, acts on the directions of the superior authority
would amount to ultra vires exercise of power. 21 In a case22, a license for the
construction of cinema theatre was granted to the respondent by the
Commissioner of Police on the recommendation of the advisory committee but
had to cancel it at the directions of the state government. The court held the
cancellation order bad as the Commissioner acted on the directions of the State
Government and not at his own instance.
Arbitrary Exercise of Power. The court can interfere with and strike down the
administrative order when it is made or seems to be motivated by extraneous
considerations or a decision made mechanically without application of mind.
An administrative authority is legally bound to grant license to a dealer who to
whom it was already issued; deposits. Instead of issuing license, the
administrative authority prosecuted the dealer for carrying business without
obtaining license. The court held that the prosecution order to be set aside for
being arbitrary and unjust and further directions were given to grant license to
the dealer.23 In another case24, the petitioner made the highest bid for a plot and
the same was accepted by the competent authority. So, he deposited the
required amount and asked for the possession of the plot but he was informed
that his bid has been cancelled by the authorities. The court observed that the

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

 8 BAKHT MUNIR, ALI NAWAZ KHAN & NAVEED AHMAD

Additional Director General, to whom power has been further delegated by DG,
was not competent to cancel the bid and held cancellation order as arbitrary,
whimsical and capricious, based on extraneous consideration.
Irrelevant Considerations. It provides an additional ground to the courts to
attack action being taken by the administrative authorities for application of
irrelevant considerations while performing their functions. A power conferred
by a statute must be exercised on the consideration mentioned therein. Where
the authority concerned pays attention to or takes into account, circumstances,
events, or matters wholly irrelevant or extraneous to those mentioned in the
statute, then the administrative action would be ultra vires and should be
quashed. In case25, Regional Transport Authority denied a route permit without
taking care of legal considerations / conditions on the directions of government,
the court held that transport authority did not apply its mind and decision was
based on extraneous considerations. Same principle was reiterated in another
case26 where government acquired land for construction which ought to have
been acquired after its subjective satisfaction in larger public interest as
mentioned in the statute. The government cannot take both the meaning of the
word and its subjective satisfaction. The court held that the purpose for which
consent was given by the government was not so authorized by the Act. The
work to be constructed on the land should be directly beneficial to the public
and not the products which were required for the construction of the work.
Regarding the irrelevant consideration, following factors must be taken into
account: Leaving out Relevant Considerations, the action of administrative
authority becomes invalid where relevant factors have not been taken into
consideration which the concerned statute prescribes expressly or impliedly.
The relevant factors in this regard may be quality, production capacity,
economic factors or administrative policy pertaining to maintenance of law and
order.27 Regarding Mixed Considerations, the courts have different notions
where an administrative order is based on partly relevant and existent
considerations and partly on irrelevant or non-existent considerations. Such
cases are divided into the following two categories with competing views: Strict
view; the cases here mostly involve individual liberty and the courts have
established that the whole order will be void even if one of the so many
considerations is irrelevant. Liberal view; these are the cases where an individual
liberty is not involved, relevant considerations among all the mixed ones will be
considered sufficient for validity of an order to the extent of such relevant
considerations.
Not Using Discretion. The authority to which discretion is granted is expected
to use it and not to withhold it. The public authorities should exercise
discretion by applying their mind and should not discriminate among
individuals. Refusal to exercise discretion may appear in different forms:

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

CONTROLS OVER ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION 9

surrender of discretion; surrender of discretion involves the cases where

authority does not consider the facts itself or any other person has determined
facts or has used discretion whereas such person has no discretion vested in him
by law. In a case28, where a scheme was published by the manager without the
corporation applying its mind thereto and scheme was approved by the
governor, the court held it invalid. Acting under dictation, a situation of non-
application of mind by the authority arises when it exercises discretion under
the dictation of a superior authority. This would amount to abdication of
authority which is not intended by the statute. In another case 29, where the
commissioner of police, authorized to grant license for the construction of
cinema-theatres, issued the same to the respondent on the recommendation of
an advisory committee, but later on cancelled it at the direction of the state
government. The court held the cancellation order bad as it has flowed from
the government and the commissioner merely acted as a transmitting agent.
Applying fetters to discretion, a case of non-application of mind may arise when
the authority deliberately applies limitations or fetters on discretion. In a case 30
the court observed that the statutory discretion cannot be fettered by self-
created rules or policy. Although it is open to an authority to which discretion
has been entrusted to lay down the norms or rules to regulate exercise
discretion. Acting mechanically, another situation of non-application arises
when authority takes an action without due care and acting mechanically. In
another case31, the commissioner who was performing his functions as appellate
authority acted on the findings of lower staff without applying his mind. The
Supreme Court quashed the order passed by the Commissioner. Non
compliance with procedural requirements, the exercise of discretion can be held
bad because the authority did not comply with the mandatory procedure laid
down in the statute. It was held in a case32 where government was authorized to
recommend school text books in consultation with Board of Higher Education.
The government consulted only its chairman. The notification prescribing text
books was held to be void for want of statutory procedure, i.e., to consult the
entire Board.
Unreasonableness. Unreasonableness is taken as a separate ground where
fundamental rights are affected or where unreasonable classification is made.
Both India and Pakistan have adopted English doctrine of reasonableness which
implies that powers, especially discretionary ones, should be exercised
judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously. ‘Reasonable’ means something
which appeals to the mind of an ordinary prudent man. An action on evidence
is reasonable whereas that on suspicion is unreasonable. Unreasonableness may
have many facets; even a decision on relevant grounds is unreasonable where
the authority has given more weightage to some factors than they deserved as
compared with other factors.33 However, it is important to note that satisfaction
cannot be challenged on sufficiency of reasons. It is to be checked on the

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

 10 BAKHT MUNIR, ALI NAWAZ KHAN & NAVEED AHMAD

parameter whether evidence exists or not. Moreover, reasonableness has to be

interpreted according to circumstances and it cannot take an objective form. In
a case34, where some Japanese were detained on the satisfaction of Secretary of
State as being the citizens of a hostile country during World War II. The court
said that the word “satisfaction” is subjective and cannot be opened in court,
thus giving a liberal interpretation. However, in another case 35 the Court held
that the rule laid down in liversidge case was not a general rule because it was
laid down in special circumstances, i.e., war which was not applicable after that
time. But, in the UK, India, and Pakistan, the administrative actions as well as
the delegated legislation can be challenged on the ground of unreasonableness.
Principles of Natural Justice. The administrative authorities while exercising
discretionary powers must observe the principles of natural justice, i.e. fair
hearing and the rule against bias. These are the minimal standards considered
necessary to deliver justice to the masses. The breach of any of these principles
entitles the aggrieved person to get the order of the public officials quashed. It
has been held in a case36 that the principle of hearing shall be applicable to the
proceedings no matter they are purely administrative in nature. In this case
Section 179 of the District Municipal Act of 1901 provided that any Municipality
could be superseded on two grounds: abuse of Power and bad administration.
Municipality of Tandu Muhammad Khan was superseded on the above two
grounds without opportunity of being heard. One of the aggrieved brought an
action to the High Court and pleaded that PNJ should be attracted to the
proceedings as they were quasi judicial in nature. High Court of Karachi held
that the principle of hearing shall apply even to those cases where the action is
pure administrative, although the law did not provide for hearing. The
principles about the rule against bias were enunciated in a case37 where the
Court observed that justice should not only be done but manifestly and
undoubtedly should be seen to have been done. No person should be a judge in
his own case. Rules of bias are to be applied on courts, tribunals, and authorities
having jurisdiction to determine judicial rights of the parties. Any direct
pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject of inquiry does disqualify a
person from acting as a judge in the matter.
Legitimate Expectations. The last but not the least ground to attack
administrative action is principle of legitimate expectations which evolved as a
new ground for challenging the action being taken by the administrative
authorities. Functionaries under trusted duties are supposed to perform their
functions to come up to the anticipations of the masses. A task once initiated by
public official gives birth to the legitimate expectations of the people to be
accomplished and in case of divergence any person, even not having a legal
right, may get the court in motion to direct particular department for the
completion of that particular task. But, at the same time, it is also noteworthy

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

CONTROLS OVER ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION 11

that court will have to go to the future and socio-economic implications of that
very project.
This principle of legitimate expectations operates only in public law field
and provides locus standi for judicial review whose denial is a ground for
challenging the decision but the decision can be justified only by showing some
intervening public interest. Furthermore, denial by itself does not constitute any
absolute right to claim relief but it is limited to denial of any right or where
action taken is arbitrary, unreasonable, against public interest and inconsistent
with principles of natural justice. However, the court shall not interfere merely
on the ground of change in the government policy. 38 In a case39, the petitioner
sought direction to the authorities for implementing scheme for
construction of bridge over river, approved by government in year, 2005.
Plea raised by authorities was that completion of the scheme was low in
priority. Case of petitioners was based on principle of legitimate
expectations which had been evolved and invoked to provide relief on
considerations of fairness and reasonableness even though no enforceable
legal rights were being asserted or claimed. A duly approved public welfare
scheme after having been put in operation, had given rise to legitimate
expectations which could not be allowed to be frustrated. Good
governance also demanded that project once approved and put in
operation should be completed otherwise substantial amount in millions
which had already been incurred would go down the drain. Low priority of
scheme might have been available before its implementation but decis ive
steps were taken and it was too late then to discard the scheme. High Court
directed the authorities to resume and complete remaining construction of
bridge i n question at the earliest.

Conclusion
To say precisely, in the context of modern welfare state granting of
discretionary powers to public officials is unavoidable. There always lurks
likelihood of abusing these powers by the administrative authorities. In order to
administer functions of the state authorities, within the purview of their
jurisdiction, a mechanism comprising of legislative, administrative and judicial
accountability has been devised for the efficacious state functioning. The
legislature, being the first agency of control at pre-conferment stage, while
delegating its powers ascertains the limits and guidelines for proper use of these
powers. Nonetheless, the legislature never abdicates its powers completely, but
provides only a framework within which executive can exercise the
discretionary powers. At post-conferment stage, the administrative dispensation
also provides apparatus to control the wide ranged powers of public officials. On
one hand, the administrative control ensures transparency and accountability
with regard to smooth administration and provides relief through its own

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

 12 BAKHT MUNIR, ALI NAWAZ KHAN & NAVEED AHMAD

agency to the aggrieved person on the other hand. In common parlance, relief
granted by the administration against its official is called departmental remedy.
As a last resort, to avoid the abuse of authority by public functionaries, judiciary
serves as a check and the aggrieved person is provided with a judicial remedy.
Though a number of grounds have been established by the courts to review
and annul the orders of the administrative authorities, yet on the contrary the
situation is not that downy for an individual to get such orders quashed. One of
the main reasons is that the proof of such grounds as mala fides, improper
purpose, colorable exercise, irrelevant consideration, etc, is normally
unavailable in the form of documentary evidence because government
authorities enjoy privileges in many aspects not to publicize the official record
and the courts have also shown hesitation to call for the same with special
emphasis. The Superior Courts grant remedy to the aggrieved through means of
judicial review. The same is in practice in Pakistan where the Superior Courts
are empowered to review administrative actions on certain grounds as provided
under the Constitution and judicial precedents. So, the dream of good
governance in a welfare state can only be materialized when discretionary
powers entrusted to the administrative authorities are used in such a way as to
be instrumental to advance the cause of justice and public welfare.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]

CONTROLS OVER ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION 13

Endnotes

1
Goel, S. L. Advanced public administration. Deep and Deep Publications (2003): 565.
2
Abu Bakar Siddique v Collector of Customs, 2006 SCMR 705.
3
Khan, Hamid. Principles of Adminstrative Law: A Comparative Study. Oxford University
Press (2012): 126.
4
Wade, H. W. R., and C. F. Forsyth. "Administrative law (2000): 83."
5
Muhammad Javed v Officer in Charge Market Committee, 2002 SCMR 388.
6
Capital Development Authority v. Zahid Iqbal, PLD 2004 SC 99.
7
Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada, 1999 SCMR 2189.
8
Malik Tanveer Ali v. Secretary, Revenue Division, 2008 PTD 920.
9
Muhammad Basher v. Abdul Kareem, PLD 2004 SC 271.
10
Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2010 SC 265.
11
Abdul Rasheed Bhatti v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary, PLD 2010 LHC 468.
12
Mahesh Chandra v. U.P. Financial Corporation, AIR 1993 SC 935.
13
University of the Punjab v. Ruhi Farzana, 1996 SCMR 263.
14
State v. Zia Ur Rehman, PLD 1973 SC 49.
15
Abdul Raoof v. Abdul Hameed, PLD 1965 SC 671.
16
Shafiullah v. Government of Pakistan, PLD 2002 PHC 50.
17
Amanullah Khan v. Federal Govt. of Pakistan, PLD 1990. SC 1992.
18
Zafar ul Hassan v. Republic of Pakistan, PLD 1960 SC 113.
19
Ahmad Hussain v. State, AIR 1951 Nagpur 1387.
20
Safdar Ali v. Province of East Pakistan, PLD 1964 DACCA 457.
21
Kesari, Uma Pati Das. Lectures on Administrative Law. Central Law Publications (1993):
242- 243.
22
Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16.
23
Muari Lal Jhunijhunwala v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 515.
24
Muhammad Tariq v. DG, LDA, 2010. MLD 486.
25
Ikram Bus Service v. Board of Revenue, PLD 1963 SC 564.
26
R.L. Arora v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 764.
27
Ranjit Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1981SC 461.
28
Manik Chandra v. State, AIR 1973. Gau 1.
29
Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16.
30
U.P. State Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Ismail, AIR 1991 SC 1099.
31
Ghulam Muhyuddin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, PLD 1964 SC 829.
32
Naraindas v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 1232.
33
Sheonath v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner, AIR 1971 SC 451.
34
Liversidge v. Anderson, 1942 AC 206.
35
Nakhuda Ali v. Jayarativen, 1951 AC 66.
36
Mir Ali Ahmad v. Province of West Pakistan, PLD 1956 Karachi 237.
37
Government of NWFP v. Dr. Hussain Ahmad Haroon, 2003 SCMR 104.
38
Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, 1993 SCC 499.
39
Muhammad Nawaz Malik and others v. Government of the Punjab and others , PLD
2011 LHC 160.

ISSRA Papers Volume-XIII, 2021 [1-13]