JOHN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The level of intrusion of judicial review and scrutiny into administrative decisions have bedevilled courts and commentators for decades. However, there is now little doubt that the extant views on this aspect hinges on contextual factors; the distinction familiar to earlier generation - between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors; and between questions of law and facts - being less prominent in contemporary jurisprudence. Therefore, the intensity of jurisdictional review will vary from case to case, depending on the interaction of the relevant contextual determinants.

(2.) Thus, the bottom line is whether the Authority has acted in the manner legally postulated and sanctioned, rather than whether the decision impugned conforms to the notions of the Court. The imperative obligation of Courts, while acting in jurisdictional review, is to ensure that the competent Authority exercises only those powers that are specifically given to it and that it has acted within the scope and manner of that power. If this is found, courts normally will not interfere with the decision.

(3.) The afore introductory lines have been necessitated because in the afore cases, being considered jointly on account of the similarity and affinity of the facts involved, this Court is inexorably persuaded to set aside the orders impugned, since they clearly fail on the touchstone of the afore essential attributes; as I will explain after recording the factual scenario, as gathered from the pleadings available.