'No law can clothe administrative action with a complete finality even if the law says so, for the courts always examine the ambit and even the mode of its exercise to check its conformity with fundamental rights.' In th

The courts in India control the exercise of administrative discretion, which can be grouped under two broad heads: Authority has not exercised its discretion properly- 'abuse of discretion'. Authority is deemed not to have exercised its discretion at all- 'non-application of mind'. Abuse of Discretion (i) Mala fides: it means dishonest intention or corrupt motive. If the discretionary power exercised by authority with bad faith or dishonest intention, the action is quashed by the court. The intention may be to promote another public interest or private interest. (ii) Irrelevant considerations: if the administrative authority takes into account factors, circumstances or events wholly irrelevant or extraneous to the purpose mentioned in the statute, then administrative action is vitiated / likely to be quashed by the courts. (iii) Leaving out relevant considerations: The administrative authority who is required to take into account all the relevant facts, if leaves relevant consideration, its action will be invalid. (iv) Arbitrary orders: The order made should be based on facts and cogent reasoning and not on the whims and fancies of the adjudicatory authority. (v) Improper purpose: The discretionary power is required to be used for the purpose for which it has been given. If it is given for one purpose and used for another purpose it will amount to abuse of power. (vi) Colourable exercise of power: Where the discretionary power is exercised by the authority on which it has been conferred ostensibly for the purpose for which it has been given but in reality for some other purpose, it is taken as colourable exercise of the discretionary power and it is declared invalid. (vii) Non-compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice: If the procedural requirement laid down in the statute is mandatory and it is not complied, the exercise of power will be bad. Whether the procedural requirement is mandatory or directory is decided by the court. Principles of natural justice are also required to be observed. (viii) Exceeding jurisdiction: The authority is required to exercise the power within the limits of the statute. Consequently, if the authority exceeds this limit, its action will be held to be ultra vires and, therefore, void. Non-application of mind (i) Acting under dictation: Where the authority exercises its discretionary power under the instructions/dictation from superior authority, in such condition in substance the power is not exercised by it but by the other authority. Such decision or action is bad. (ii) Self-restriction: The authority entrusted with discretionary power is required to exercise it after considering the individual cases and should not impose fetters on it discretion by adopting fixed rule of policy to be applied rigidly to all cases coming before it. Such decision or action will be bad. (iii) Acting mechanically and without due care: It will render the decision bad in law.