Administrative action

Three general principles on basis of which judicial review against any administrative action is undertaken are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety

Detailed questions of facts cannot be gone into in a petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution.

High Court while exercising its powers of judicial review of administrative action, does not sit as Court of appeal but only reviews the manner in which decision in question has arrived at

Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not merits of decision which is challenged in a petition but decision making process.

High Court while exercising its powers of judicial review of administrative action, does not sit as Court of appeal but only reviews manner in which decision in question has arrived at

Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not merits of decision which is challenged in a petition but decision making process.

Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides

Terms of invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny and Court cannot whittle down terms of tender unless they are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice.

In absence of some unrrebuttable material on record regarding malafides, court should not annul order of executive authority which otherwise does not reflect any illegality or jurisdictional defect.

Administrative action was subject to control by judicial review on four grounds; first, where there was "illegality", which meant the decision maker must understand correctly the law that regulated his decision making power and must give effect to it; second, in case of irrationality, which meant the decision should not be unreasonable; third, in case of "procedural impropriety", and fourth where there was arbitrariness and favoritism by government bodies.

Power to judicially review an administrative action was not concerned with the merits of the decision in respect of which judicial review was sought, but the decision making process itself

Remedy of judicial review was concerned with setting aside of the order/action and was remittal in nature, unlike appeal where the Court could vary the decision and could also substitute its decision for that of the decision maker.

Company which was performing function in connection with affairs of Federation, was amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Mere fact that company was a limited company registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, limited by shares was not sufficient to hold that constitutional petition could not be maintained against such company

Even if such company was registered under Companies Ordinance, 1984 but was funded by Federal or Provincial Government and was under the dominative control of the State, jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution, would lie against such company

Constitutional petition was, therefore, maintainable.

Nature, scope and connotation.