PART-2 IMPORTANT MCQ'S OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

PART-2

IMPORTANT MCQ'S OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

1. Hira Nath Mishra Vs. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, is a leading case on:

(A) Judicial review

(B) Right of Cross-examination

(D) Public corporation

Answer: (B) Right of Cross-examination

Explanation: This case involved the expulsion of some students from a medical college for misconduct without giving them a chance to cross-examine the witnesses against them. The Supreme Court held that this violated the principles of natural justice and quashed the expulsion order. The court observed that the right of cross-examination is an essential element of a fair hearing and cannot be denied arbitrarily.

2. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India is related to:

(A) Writ of certiorari

(B) Post-decisional hearing

(D) Lokpal

Answer: (B) Post-decisional hearing

Explanation: This case involved the impounding of the passport of Maneka Gandhi by the government without giving her any reason or opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court held that this violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The court also held that the procedure established by law under Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable and not arbitrary or oppressive. The court further held that in some cases, a post-decisional hearing may be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of natural justice, if the pre-decisional hearing is not possible or practicable.

3. The system of droit administratif was opposed by:

(A) Pound

(B) Austin

(D) Hegel

Answer: (C) Dicey

Explanation: Droit administratif is the French system of administrative law, which is based on the supremacy of the executive and the special jurisdiction of the administrative courts. Dicey was a British jurist and constitutional expert, who advocated the rule of law and the equality of all persons before the ordinary courts. He criticized the system of droit administratif as being contrary to the principles of democracy and justice. He argued that the administrative authorities should not have any special privileges or immunities and should be subject to the same laws and courts as the citizens.

4. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India was decided by a constitution Bench consisting:

(A) 5 judges

(B) 7 judges

(D) 13 judges

Answer: (B) 7 judges

Explanation: A constitution bench is a bench of the Supreme Court comprising at least five judges, which is empowered to decide cases involving substantial questions of law relating to the interpretation of the Constitution. The case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India was decided by a constitution bench of seven judges, namely, Chief Justice M.H. Beg, and Justices Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S. Kailasam.

5. Non-compliance of “Audi Alteram Partem” results in:

(A) Valid action

(B) Null and void action

(D) Voidable

Answer: (B) Null and void action

Explanation: Audi alteram partem is a Latin maxim meaning “hear the other side”, or “let the other side be heard as well”. It is a principle of natural justice that requires that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against them. Non-compliance of this principle results in a null and void action, which means that the action is invalid and has no legal effect. Such an action can be challenged and quashed by a competent court or authority.

6. A.K. Kraipak Vs. Union of India is a leading case on:

(A) Delegated legislation

(B) Biasness

(D) Separation of Powers

Answer: (B) Biasness

Explanation: This case involved the selection of officers to the Indian Forest Service by a special selection board, one of whose members was himself a candidate and had a personal interest in the outcome. The Supreme Court held that this amounted to biasness and vitiated the selection process. The court observed that biasness may be of various types, such as personal bias, pecuniary bias, subject-matter bias, departmental bias, etc. The court also held that the test of biasness is not whether there is actual bias, but whether there is a reasonable likelihood of bias.

7. In the case of In re Delhi Laws Act, section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 was declared by supreme court to be:

(A) Ultra-vires

(B) Intra-vires

(D) Illegal

Answer: (B) Intra-vires

Explanation: This case involved the validity of certain laws that empowered the government to extend to Delhi and other territories any law in force in any other part of India, with such restrictions and modifications as it thought fit. The Supreme Court declared that section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, which conferred such power on the government, was intra-vires, which means that it was within the competence and authority of the legislature that enacted it. The court held that such a power was not an abdication or delegation of legislative power, but a conditional legislation, which was permissible under the Constitution.

8. Which of the following is a category of administrative action?

(A) Rule making action

(B) Rule decision action

(D) All of the above

Answer: (D) All of the above

Explanation: Administrative action is the action taken by the executive or administrative authorities in the exercise of their powers and functions. Administrative action can be classified into various categories, such as rule making action, rule decision action, ministerial action, etc. Rule making action is the action of making rules, regulations, orders, etc. that have the force of law and are binding on the public. Rule decision action is the action of applying the rules to specific cases and deciding the rights and obligations of the parties. Ministerial action is the action of performing routine or mechanical tasks that do not involve any discretion or judgment. All of these are categories of administrative action.

9. Which jurist said 20th century of administrative explosion?

(A) Robson

(B) Hart

(D) Hewart

Answer: (A) Robson

Explanation: According to the article Evolution and Development of Administrative Law in India, US, UK and France, Robson was a British jurist who characterized administrative law as the most outstanding legal development of the 20th century. He defined administrative law as the law relating to public administration, in contrast to commercial law or land law. He also observed that the governments have evolved from being laissez-faire to parens patriae, meaning that they have assumed more responsibilities for the welfare of the people.

10. Certiorari is an order of:

(A) District Court

(B) High Court only

(D) High Court or Supreme Court

Answer: (D) High Court or Supreme Court

Explanation: Certiorari is a writ or order issued by a higher court to a lower court or tribunal to review its decisions for any irregularities or errors of law. It is one of the writs available under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court can issue certiorari under Article 32 for the enforcement of fundamental rights, while the High Courts can issue certiorari under Article 226 for the enforcement of any legal right. Certiorari can also be issued by the Supreme Court to the High Courts under Article 136 as a special leave to appeal.

11. Conceal d’Etat is the highest ________ of France.

(A) Revenue Court

(B) Administrative Court

(D) None of the above

Answer: (B) Administrative Court

Explanation: Conseil d’État, which means Council of State, is the highest administrative court in France. It has the power to adjudicate disputes involving public administration, as well as to advise the government on legislative and regulatory matters. It also acts as the supreme court for administrative justice, reviewing the decisions of lower administrative courts and tribunals. The Conseil d’État was established in 1302, but was reorganized under Napoleon and given further powers in 1872. It has served as a model for similar institutions in other countries, such as Belgium, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Spain, Turkey, and Egypt.

12. “Removal of Difficulties” clause is known as:

(A) Henry VIII clause

(B) Henry I clause

(D) William X clause

Answer: (A) Henry VIII clause

Explanation: A “removal of difficulties” clause is a provision in a statute that empowers the government to make provisions to remove any difficulty that may arise in putting the law into operation. Such a provision is usually inserted in a statute that is being enacted for the first time, since it may not be possible to anticipate all the difficulties that may arise in its implementation. It is also known as a Henry VIII clause, after the English king who used such a provision as an instrument of a servile Parliament to remove difficulties. A “removal of difficulties” clause may sometimes confer the power to modify the provisions of the existing statute for the purpose of removing difficulties, without altering its substance. However, such a power is subject to the limits of excessive delegation and judicial review.

13. Doctrine of necessity is an exception to the:

(A) Rule of Natural justice

(B) Delegated Legislation

(D) None of the above

Answer: (A) Rule of Natural Justice

Explanation: The doctrine of necessity is an exception to the rule of natural justice, which is one of the principles of fair and impartial adjudication. The rule of natural justice includes the rule against bias, which states that no one should be a judge in his own cause, or have any personal interest or prejudice in the outcome of the case. However, the doctrine of necessity allows an authority to decide in certain situations, which are otherwise off-limits through the eyes of the law, if there is no other alternative or competent authority available. The doctrine of necessity is based on the assumption that it is better to have a biased decision than no decision at all, and that necessity knows no law. The doctrine of necessity has been invoked in various situations, such as judicial emergencies, constitutional crises, self-defence, etc.

14. Whose name is associated with evolution of Public litigation in India?

(A) A.S. Anand

(B) J.S. Verma

(D) None of the above

Answer: (C) P.N. Bhagwati

Explanation: Justice P.N. Bhagwati is widely regarded as the pioneer of public interest litigation (PIL) in India. He was one of the first judges to accept PILs in the Supreme Court, along with Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. He introduced the concept of “judicial activism”, which aimed to protect human rights, advance social justice, and safeguard the environment. He also relaxed the rules of locus standi, allowing any person or group to approach the court on behalf of the public interest, even if they had no direct personal interest in the matter. He also accepted letters and telegrams as PILs, making justice more accessible to the poor and marginalized sections of society. He delivered several landmark judgments on PILs, such as the Bandhua Mukti Morcha case, the Olga Tellis case, the M.C. Mehta case, etc.

15. Which of the following rules has been relaxed in public interest litigation?

(A) Cause of action

(B) Locus Standi

(D) None of the above

Answer: (B) Locus Standi

Explanation: Locus standi is the legal term for the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court. Traditionally, locus standi required that the person filing the petition must have a direct or personal interest in the matter, or must be an aggrieved party whose legal rights are affected by the dispute. However, this rule has been relaxed in public interest litigation (PIL), which allows any person or group to file a petition on behalf of the public interest, even if they have no direct or personal interest in the matter. This relaxation of locus standi was introduced by Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the 1970s, with the aim of making justice more accessible and responsive to the needs of the people, especially the poor and marginalized sections of society.

16. Contract made under Union executive power is governed by:

(A) Article 299

(B) Article 306

(D) Article 370

Answer: (A) Article 299

Explanation: Article 299 of the Constitution of India deals with the manner and form of contracts made by or on behalf of the government of India or any state government. It states that all contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or of a State shall be expressed to be made by the President or the Governor of the State, as the case may be, and all such contracts and all assurances of property made in the exercise of that power shall be executed on behalf of the President or the Governor by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or authorise. It also states that neither the President nor the Governor shall be personally liable in respect of any contract or assurance made or executed for the purposes of the Constitution or any law, nor shall any person making or executing any such contract or assurance on behalf of any of them be personally liable in respect thereof. Article 299 aims to establish a specific procedure to safeguard public funds and prevent unauthorized or illegitimate contracts.

17. A public interest litigation may be filed in:

(A) Only Supreme Court

(B) Only High Court

(D) Supreme Court or High Court

Answer: D) Supreme Court or High Court.

Explanation: A public interest litigation (PIL) is a legal action that is filed in a court of law for the protection or enforcement of public interest or general interest. PILs can be filed by any individual or organization who has sufficient interest in the matter or who is acting on behalf of a disadvantaged or oppressed section of society. PILs can be filed either in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution or in any High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. PILs are a form of judicial activism that aims to provide access to justice to the poor and marginalized and to uphold the rule of law and constitutional values.

18. Public interest litigation is defined in:

(A) Constitution of India

(B) Administrative Law

(D) None of the above

Answer : D) None of the above.

Explanation: Public interest litigation (PIL) is not defined in any statute or in the Constitution of India. It is a concept that has been developed by the judiciary through its interpretations and judgments. The term PIL was first used by the Supreme Court of India in the case of S.P. Gupta vs Union of India (1981) , where it held that any member of the public can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the High Courts for the enforcement of public or general interest. The Supreme Court also laid down the criteria and guidelines for entertaining PILs in various cases such as M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (1986), People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India (1996) , etc. Therefore, PIL is a judicial innovation that is based on the principles of equity, justice and good conscience.

19. Public interest litigation can not be filed on:

(A) Service matters

(B) Neglected children

(D) Harassment by police

Answer : A ) Service matters.

Explanation: Service matters are those matters that relate to the terms and conditions of service of public servants, such as appointment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary action, pension, gratuity, etc. Service matters are not entertained as PILs by the courts, as they are considered to be individual or personal matters that do not affect the public interest or general interest. The Supreme Court has issued a set of guidelines to be followed for entertaining PILs, and one of the categories that is excluded from PILs is service matters (except in individual cases.

20. On which of the following matters the public interest litigation is acceptable?

(A) Family pension

(B) Petition from riot-victims

(D) All of the above

Answer: D) All of the above.

Explanation: Public interest litigation (PIL) can be filed on any matter that affects the interest of the public or a class of the community, and that involves the violation of legal or constitutional rights or duties. Some of the matters that are commonly entertained as PILs are environmental pollution, food adulteration, bonded labour, neglected children, atrocities on women, death in police custody, riot victims, etc. These matters fall within the scope of PILs, as they pertain to the protection of fundamental rights, human rights, social justice, public welfare, and public policy. Therefore, all of the above matters are acceptable as PILs.

21. Who issued public interest litigation Guidelines?

(A) Indian Parliament

(B) Supreme Court of India

(D) None of the above

Answer : B) Supreme Court of India.

Explanation: The Supreme Court of India is the apex judicial body in the country, and it has the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other constitutional and legal matters. The Supreme Court is also the pioneer of public interest litigation (PIL) in India, and it has evolved the concept and practice of PIL through its various judgments and orders. The Supreme Court has also issued guidelines to be followed for entertaining PILs, and it has the discretion to decide whether a petition qualifies as a PIL or not. The Supreme Court has also nominated a judge to deal with the PIL matters, and it has established a PIL cell to screen and process the PIL petitions. Therefore, the Supreme Court of India is the authority that has issued the PIL guidelines.

22. The concept of estoppel is contained in_____________ of the Evidence Act.

(A) Sec. 108

(B) Sec. 112

(D) Sec. 115

Answer: D) Sec. 115.

Explanation: The concept of estoppel is contained in Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a person from denying or contradicting a fact or a statement that he or she has previously asserted or accepted as true. Estoppel is based on the doctrine of equity and good faith, and it aims to prevent fraud, inconsistency, and injustice.

Section 115 of the Evidence Act defines estoppel as follows: “When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”

23. In Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, The State was_______ for tortious act.

(A) Not held liable

(B) Held liable

(D) None of the above

Answer : A) Not held liable.

Explanation: In the case of Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965) , the Supreme Court held that the State was not liable for the tortious act committed by its employees in the exercise of sovereign functions. The facts of the case were that the plaintiff, a gold merchant, was arrested by the police on suspicion of possessing stolen property. The police seized his gold and silver ornaments and kept them in the police custody. However, one of the police constables stole the ornaments and fled to Pakistan. The plaintiff filed a suit against the State for the recovery of the value of the ornaments, alleging that the State was vicariously liable for the negligence and breach of duty of its employees. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, and held that the State was not liable for the torts committed by its employees in the exercise of sovereign functions, such as the arrest, search and seizure of the plaintiff and his property. The Supreme Court followed the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions of the State, as laid down in the case of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company vs. Secretary of State for India (1861) , and held that the State was immune from liability for the acts done in the exercise of sovereign powers. The Supreme Court also held that the Government of India Act, 1858 and the Constitution of India did not abrogate or modify the common law principle of sovereign immunity, and that there was no statutory provision or constitutional provision that made the State liable for the torts committed by its employees.

24. Peninsular and Oriental steam Navigation company Vs. Secretary of State for India was decided by Bombay High Court Bench consisting:

(A) Peacock and Maine

(B) Jackson and Blackstone

(D) Peacock, Jackson and Wells

Answer : (D) Peacock, Jackson and Wells.

Explanation: The case of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company vs. Secretary of State for India (1861) 17 was decided by the Bombay High Court Bench consisting of Peacock CJ, Jackson J and Wells J. This case is considered to be the landmark case that laid down the principle of sovereign immunity of the State in India. The facts of the case were that the plaintiff, a British shipping company, sued the defendant, the Secretary of State for India, for the damages caused to its ship by the negligence of the government employees at the Kidderpore Dockyard in Calcutta. The Bombay High Court held that the defendant was not liable for the torts committed by the government employees, as they were acting in the exercise of sovereign functions. The Bombay High Court drew a distinction between the sovereign and non-sovereign functions of the State, and held that the State was liable only for the torts committed by its employees in the course of non-sovereign functions, such as commercial or trading activities. The Bombay High Court also held that the East India Company, which was the predecessor of the Secretary of State for India, had a dual character, and that it was liable for the torts committed by its employees in the course of non-sovereign functions, but not for the torts committed by its employees in the course of sovereign functions. The Bombay High Court also held that the Government of India Act, 1858, which transferred the powers and functions of the East India Company to the Secretary of State for India, did not alter or affect the liability of the State for the torts committed by its employees.

25. The Administrative Procedure Act was enacted in:

(A) 1942

(B) 1944

(D) 1946

Answer: (D) 1946

Explanation: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal act that governs the procedures of administrative law in the United States. It was enacted in 1946.

26. Franks committee was appointed in:

(A) 1951

(B) 1953

(D) 1957

Answer: (B) 1953

Explanation: The Franks Committee was a British committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor in 1953 to study administrative tribunals and inquiries. It was chaired by Sir Oliver Franks and submitted its report in 1957.

27. Donoughmore committee report was published in:

(A) 1930

(B) 1931

(D) 1933

Explanation: The Donoughmore Committee was a British commission sent to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in 1927 to examine the Ceylonese constitution and to make recommendations for its revision. It was chaired by Lord Donoughmore and published its report in 1932.

28. The spirit of Laws” was published in the year:

(A) 1748

(B) 1751

(D) 1888

Answer: (A) 1748

Explanation: The Spirit of Laws (French: De l’esprit des lois) is a treatise on political theory and comparative law by Montesquieu, a French philosopher and jurist. It was first published in 1748 and translated into English in 1750.

29. In “The New Despotism” the growing use of________was criticised.

(A) Delegated Legislation

(B) Rule of Law

(D) Ombudsman

Answer: (A) Delegated Legislation

Explanation: The New Despotism is a book written by Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and published in 1929. It criticised the increasing use of delegated legislation by the executive branch of the government, which he argued violated the principles of the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty.

30. Hamdard Dawakhana Vs. Union of India is a leading case on:

(A) Estoppel

(B) Excessive delegation

(D) Rule of law

Answer: (B) Excessive delegation

Explanation: Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of India decided in 1959. It challenged the validity of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, which prohibited certain advertisements of drugs and remedies. The court held that the Act was not violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, but struck down the Schedule of the Rules made under the Act as an instance of excessive delegation of legislative power.

31. Ridge Vs. Baldwin is a leading case on:

(A) Natural justice

(B) Public corporation

(D) None of the above

Answer: (A) Natural justice

Explanation: Ridge v. Baldwin is a seminal case of the House of Lords decided in 1964. It concerned the dismissal of a chief constable by a watch committee without giving him a fair hearing. The court held that the dismissal was void and that the principles of natural justice applied to administrative decisions affecting the rights and interests of individuals.

32. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is an important case on:

(A) Quo-Warranto Writ

(B) Estoppel

(D) Delegated legislation

Answer: (B) Estoppel

Explanation: Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant case of the Supreme Court of India decided in 1979. It involved the claim of the petitioner, a sugar mill, for exemption from sales tax based on the assurance given by the state government. The court held that the state government was estopped from denying the exemption and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was applicable against the government.

33. State of West Bengal Vs. B.K. Mondal is a leading case on:

(A) Government contract

(B) Lokpal

(D) None of the above

Answer: (C) Promissory estoppel

Explanation: This case deals with the concept of quasi-contracts, which are defined under Sections 68 to 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. These types of contracts are based on the principle of promissory estoppel, which means that a person who makes a promise to another person, without any intention of creating a legal relationship, cannot go back on his promise if the other person has acted upon it and changed his position. In this case, the respondent, B.K. Mondal and Sons, had constructed some buildings for the Civil Supplies Department of the State of West Bengal, on the basis of oral instructions from the government officials. The respondent claimed payment for the work done, but the appellant, the State of West Bengal, denied any liability on the ground that there was no valid contract between them, as required by Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was liable to pay the respondent, on the basis of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states that "where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered." The Court also observed that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable against the government, and that the government cannot escape its obligation by invoking the technicality of Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.

34. The old distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions should no longer be invoked to determine liability of the state.” This statement is made by:

(A) Supreme court

(B) Allahabad High court

(D) President of India

Answer: (A) Supreme Court

Explanation: This statement is made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993). In this case, the petitioner’s son was arrested by the police and died in custody due to torture. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking compensation from the state for the violation of the fundamental right to life of her son. The Supreme Court held that the state is liable to pay compensation for the infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizens, irrespective of whether the act is done by the state in its sovereign or non-sovereign capacity. The Court rejected the argument of the state that it is immune from liability for the acts done by its servants in the exercise of sovereign functions. The Court observed that "the old distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions should no longer be invoked to determine the liability of the state in respect of the tortious acts of its servants." The Court also noted that "the concept of sovereignty has undergone a considerable change in the modern times and the line of distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign powers has largely disappeared."

35. Who said that “The King is not under man but under God and under the law because it is the law that makes the King”?

(A) Bracton

(B) Acton

(D) Wright

Answer: (A) Bracton

Explanation: This statement is attributed to Henry de Bracton, a medieval jurist and scholar who wrote a treatise on the laws and customs of England, known as De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (On the Laws and Customs of England). Bracton was influenced by the Roman law and the canon law, and he tried to systematize the common law of England in his treatise. He also emphasized the supremacy of the law over the king, and the principle that the king is subject to God and the law. He wrote that "the king should be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the king; therefore let the king render back to the law what the law gives him, namely, dominion and power; for there is no king where will, and not law, bears rule."

36. Writ of certiorari is a:

(A) Positive remedy

(B) Negative remedy

(D) Preventive remedy

Answer: (B) Negative remedy

Explanation: A writ of certiorari is a judicial order issued by the Supreme Court or the High Court to quash an order passed by a lower court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority. It can be used to correct errors of law or jurisdiction, or to prevent the violation of the principles of natural justice. A writ of certiorari is a negative remedy, as it does not confer any positive right or relief to the petitioner, but only nullifies the impugned order or action. It is also a discretionary remedy, as the court may or may not issue it depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

37. Which of the following writs is issued against the usurper of an office?

(A) Quo-Warranto

(B) Prohibition

(D) Mandmus

Answer: (A) Quo-Warranto

Explanation: Quo-Warranto is a Latin term that means "by what authority or warrant". It is a writ issued by the Supreme Court or the High Court to prevent illegal usurpation of a public office, position, or franchise. Through this writ, the court enquires into the legality of a claim of a person to a public office, and if the person is found to have no valid title or authority, the court can oust him from the office and declare it vacant. Quo-Warranto is also a preventive remedy, as it prevents the continuance of an unlawful occupation of a public office.

38. Public corporation are answerable to:

(A) Judiciary

(B) Legislature

(D) All of the above

Answer: (D) All of the above

Explanation: A public corporation is a body corporate created by an Act of Parliament or Legislature, with the objective of carrying out a specific type of public service or commercial activity. It is an artificial person with the flexibility of the private sector and the powers of the government. A public corporation is answerable to the judiciary, the legislature, and the executive, as it is subject to the constitutional and legal framework of the country. It has to comply with the provisions of its act of establishment, and the rules and regulations made thereunder. It has to submit its annual reports and accounts to the legislature, and be accountable for its performance and finances. It has to follow the directions and policies of the executive, and be responsive to the public interest and welfare. It has to respect the fundamental rights and the rule of law, and be amenable to the judicial review and Control.

39. Public corporations are financially independent. This statement is:

(A) False

(B) True

(D) Partly False

Answer: (C) Partly True

Explanation: This statement is partly true, as public corporations have some degree of financial independence, but not absolute autonomy. Public corporations generally get their capital from the government, or from the financial institutions and agencies linked to the government. They can also generate their own funds from their operating surplus and market borrowings. They have the power to create their own budgets, and retain and utilize their earnings for their business activities. However, they are also subject to the financial control and audit of the government, and have to follow the financial norms and guidelines prescribed by the government. They have to seek the approval of the government for any major expenditure or investment, and have to pay dividends to the government as the owner. They have to ensure the financial viability and efficiency of their operations, and avoid any wastage or misuse of public funds.

40. Judicial review is the power of:

(A) Legislature

(B) Executive

(D) Public corporations

Answer: (C) Judiciary

Explanation: Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government, and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution. Actions judged inconsistent are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. Judicial review is a process under which the government’s actions are subject to the scrutiny and control of the courts, based on the principle of the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law. Judicial review is also a means to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, and to ensure the balance of power among the three organs of the state. Judicial review is considered a basic structure of the constitution, and it is exercised by both the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

41. The case of judicial review may be brought in:

(A) High court only

(B) Supreme court only

(D) Both (A) and (B)

Answer: (D) Both (A) and (B)

Explanation: Judicial review is the power of the judiciary to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government, and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution. Actions judged inconsistent are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void Judicial review is exercised by both the Supreme Court and the High Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal and the guardian of the Constitution, while the High Courts are the principal civil courts of original jurisdiction in each state and union territory Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.

42. The ground of judicial review of administrative actions is/are:

(A) Illegality

(B) Ultra-vires

(D) All of the above

Answer: (D) All of the above

Explanation: The grounds of judicial review of administrative actions are the principles or tests that the courts apply to check the legality, rationality, and fairness of the decisions or actions of the public authorities5 The main grounds of judicial review are:

Illegality: This means that the public authority has acted beyond the scope of its powers, or has misinterpreted or misapplied the law, or has failed to comply with the mandatory procedures or conditions.

Ultra-vires: This means that the public authority has acted in excess of its powers, or has acted for an improper purpose, or has delegated its powers to an unauthorized person or body.

Irrelevant considerations: This means that the public authority has taken into account factors that are not relevant to the decision, or has ignored factors that are relevant to the decision, or has acted on the basis of incorrect facts or assumptions.

43. Wednesbury principle is related with:

(A) Hindu Law

(B) Muslim Law

(D) None of the above

Answer: (D) None of the above

Explanation: Wednesbury principle is a common law doctrine that allows the courts to intervene in the decision making of the administration if it is unreasonable or irrational. It is based on the test of whether the decision taken by the authority is beyond the scope of the matter at hand, beyond the reasonable man’s viewpoint, or both. It is also related to the concept of arbitrariness and Article 14 of the Constitution The principle was laid down by the Court of Appeal in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223, where Lord Greene MR said: "It is true the discretion must be exercised reasonably. Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word "unreasonable" in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting "unreasonably." Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.

44. The chairperson of Lokpal is appointed by:

(A) Prime Minister

(B) Chief Justice of India

(D) Vice-President

Answer: (C) President of India

Explanation: The Lokpal is an anti-corruption authority or body of ombudsman who represents the public interest in the Republic of India. The current Chairperson of Lokpal is Pradip Kumar Mohanty The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, provides for the appointment of the chairperson and members of the Lokpal by the President of India, on the recommendation of a selection committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India or a judge nominated by him, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and an eminent jurist nominated by the President on the basis of the recommendations of the first four members of the committee.

45. Judicial control over delegated legislation is exercised through:

(A) Commission

(B) Writs

(D) All of the above

Answer: (B) Writs

Explanation: Delegated legislation is the law made by the executive or administrative authorities under the powers conferred by the legislature. It is also known as subordinate legislation, secondary legislation, or executive legislation Judicial control over delegated legislation is exercised through the writs issued by the Supreme Court and the High Courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, respectively The writs are the orders or directions issued by the courts to enforce the fundamental rights and other legal rights of the citizens.

The main writs are:

Habeas corpus: It means "to have the body". It is issued to secure the release of a person who is illegally detained or imprisoned.

Mandamus: It means "we command". It is issued to compel a public authority to perform a duty which it is bound to perform.

Prohibition: It means "to forbid". It is issued to prevent a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to the rules of natural justice.

Certiorari: It means "to be certified". It is issued to quash an order or decision of a lower court or tribunal which is illegal, erroneous, or ultra vires.

Quo warranto: It means "by what authority". It is issued to prevent a person from holding a public office to which he is not entitled.

46. Which one of the following is not a ground for exclusion of natural justice?

(A) Statutory exclusion

(B) Public interest

(D) National integration

Answer: (D) National integration

Explanation: Natural justice is the principle that requires the public authorities to act fairly, reasonably, and impartially in the exercise of their powers and functions. It is also known as procedural fairness or due process The main rules of natural justice are:

Nemo judex in causa sua: It means "no one should be a judge in his own cause". It implies that there should be no bias or prejudice on the part of the decision maker.

Audi alteram partem: It means "hear the other side". It implies that there should be a fair hearing and an opportunity to present one’s case and evidence.

The grounds for exclusion of natural justice are the exceptions or circumstances under which the rules of natural justice may not be applicable or may be modified.

The main grounds for exclusion of natural justice are:

Statutory exclusion: It means that the statute or law itself excludes or limits the application of natural justice. For example, Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, provides that no sanction is required for prosecution of a public servant for offences under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Public interest: It means that the application of natural justice may be excluded or restricted if it is necessary to protect the public interest or the national security. For example, in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, which authorized the executive to detain a person without trial for the purpose of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.

47. Vidyawati Vs. State of Rajasthan is a leading case on:

(A) Vicarious liability of the state

(B) Vicarious liability of the company

(D) None of the above

Answer: (A) Vicarious liability of the state

Explanation: Vicarious liability is the legal principle that holds a person or entity responsible for the wrongful acts of another, based on their relationship or control over the wrongdoer. For example, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by its employees in the course of their employment.

Vidyawati Vs. State of Rajasthan is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of India decided in 1962, which established the vicarious liability of the state for the tortious acts of its servants. In this case, the driver of a government jeep car, who was employed by the state of Rajasthan, knocked down and killed a pedestrian while driving the car back from the workshop. The widow and daughter of the deceased filed a suit for damages against the driver and the state, claiming compensation. The trial court held the driver liable, but exonerated the state on the ground that the car was maintained for the use of the collector for discharging his official duties, which was a sovereign function. The high court reversed this decision and held the state also liable, on the basis of section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states that a person who lawfully does anything for another, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. The state appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment of the high court and upheld the vicarious liability of the state. The Supreme Court rejected the argument of the state that it was immune from liability for the acts done by its servants in the exercise of sovereign functions. The court observed that the concept of sovereignty has undergone a considerable change in the modern times and the line of distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign powers has largely disappeared. The court also noted that the constitution has established a welfare state with its varied industrial and other activities, and there is no justification, in principle, or in the public interest for the state not to be held liable vicariously for tortious acts of its servants.

48. Administrative law is the law concerning the power and procedure of

(A) Legislative authority

(B) Administrative authority

(D) None of the above

Answer: (B) Administrative authority

Explanation: Administrative law is a branch of public law that is concerned with the procedures, rules, and regulations of a number of governmental agencies. Administrative law specifically deals with the such administrative agencies’ decision-making capabilities, as they carry out laws passed by state and federal legislature.

Administrative law includes executive branch rule making (executive branch rules are generally referred to as "regulations"), adjudication, and the enforcement of laws. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law.

Administrative law determines the organisation, powers and duties of administrative authorities. It includes law relating to the rule-making power of the administrative bodies, the quasi-judicial function of administrative agencies, legal liabilities of public authorities and power of the ordinary courts to supervise administrative authorities. It governs the executive and ensures that the executive treats the public fairly.

49. Under Indian constitution, the separation of executive and judiciary is a

(A) Fundamental duty

(B) Directive principle

(D) None of the above

Answer: (B) Directive principle

Explanation: The separation of executive and judiciary is one of the directive principles of state policy under Article 50 of the Indian Constitution. It states that "The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State." 1 Directive principles are not legally enforceable, but they are fundamental in the governance of the country and the state is expected to apply them in making laws.

50. Public corporation is a:

(A) Legal person

(B) Natural person

(D) None of the above

Answer: (A) Legal person

Explanation: A public corporation is a legal person, which means that it is a body corporate created by an Act of Parliament or Legislature, and has a separate legal identity from its owners. It can sue and be sued in its own name, and can acquire, hold and dispose of property. It is also an artificial person, as it is not a natural human being, but a creation of law.

51. Public corporation is also known as:

(A) Statutory corporation

(B) Illegal corporation

(D) None of the above

Answer: (A) Statutory corporation

Explanation: A public corporation is also known as a statutory corporation, because it is established by a special statute or act of the legislature, which defines its powers, functions, objectives, privileges and relationship with the government. A statutory corporation is not subject to the ordinary rules of company law, but is governed by the provisions of its own act of establishment.

52. Public corporation is created by:

(A) Judiciary

(B) Legislature

(D) All are correct

Answer: (B) Legislature

Explanation: A public corporation is created by the legislature, either by the Parliament or the State Legislature, depending on whether it is a central or a state public enterprise. The legislature passes a special act to create a public corporation, and notifies its name in the official gazette of the Central or State Government. The act also specifies the capital, management, functions and powers of the public corporation

53. Public corporation is owned by:

(A) Private body

(B) State

(D) None of the above

Answer: (B) State

Explanation: A public corporation is owned by the state, which means that it is under the control and supervision of the government. The government appoints the board of directors and the chief executive of the public corporation, and also provides the initial capital and funds. The government also lays down the policies and directions for the public corporation, and monitors its performance and finances. The government is also the ultimate beneficiary of the profits and dividends of the public corporation.

54. Which of the following is/are a public corporation?

(A) State trading corporation

(B) Food corporation of India

(D) All of the above

Answer: (D) All of the above

Explanation: All of the given options are examples of public corporations in India. State Trading Corporation, Food Corporation of India, and Unit Trust of India are all statutory corporations created by the Parliament under different acts, and are engaged in various commercial and service activities. They are owned and controlled by the government, and have a separate legal identity and financial autonomy.

55. Lokpal is a/an_______ body.

(A) Environmental

(B) Anti-corruption

(D) Consumer-awareness

Answer: (B) Anti-corruption

Explanation: Lokpal is an anti-corruption body, which is an ombudsman institution that represents the public interest in the Republic of India. It has the power to inquire into allegations of corruption against public officials and elected representatives at the central level, and to ensure accountability and transparency in the governance. It is established by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, which was passed after a long-standing demand and movement by the civil society.

56. The word Lokpal was firstly coined by:

(A) L.M. Singhvi

(B) M.C. Setalwad

(D) None of the above

Answer: (A) L.M. Singhvi

Explanation: The word Lokpal was firstly coined by Dr. L.M. Singhvi, a jurist and a member of parliament, in 1963. He derived the word from the Sanskrit words "loka" meaning people and "pala" meaning protector or friend. He proposed the concept of a constitutional ombudsman who would act as a watchdog of democracy and a guardian of the constitution. He also drafted the first Lokpal Bill in 1968, which was passed by the Lok Sabha, but lapsed in the Rajya Sabha.

57. Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act came into force on:

(A) 1 January, 2013

(B) 1 January, 2014

(D) 16 January, 2014

Answer: (D) 16 January, 2014

Explanation: The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, is an anti-corruption legislation enacted by the Parliament of India. It establishes the institution of Lokpal at the central level and Lokayuktas at the state level. The main objective of this act is to inquire into allegations of corruption against public functionaries and take necessary action. The Act received the assent of the President on 1 January, 2014 and came into force on 16 January, 2014.

58. Ombudsman is a/an_______term.

(A) Indian

(B) Scandinavian

(D) English

Answer: (B) Scandinavian

Explanation: Ombudsman is a Scandinavian term that means "a person who investigates, reports on, and helps settle complaints : an individual usually affiliated with an organization or business who serves as an advocate for patients, consumers, employees, etc." 2 The word ombudsman is derived from the Swedish word "ombudsman", which means "representative" or "agent". The concept of ombudsman originated in Sweden in the 18th century, when the king appointed a public official to protect the rights of citizens against the abuses of the government.

59. Who was the first Lokpal of India?

(A) P.C. Ghose

(B) J.S. Verma

(D) None of the above

Answer: (A) P.C. Ghose

Explanation: Retired Supreme Court judge Pinaki Chandra Ghose was appointed as the first Lokpal of India by a committee consisting of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Speaker of the Lok Sabha Sumitra Mahajan on 23 March, 20194 He took oath as the Lokpal on 27 March, 20195 He was also a member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

60. Writ of certiorari is a:

(A) Positive remedy

(B) Negative remedy

(D) Preventive remedy

Answer :(B) Negative remedy.

A writ of certiorari is a negative remedy because it does not direct the lower authority to do something, but rather to stop doing something. It is a means of controlling the excesses or abuses of power by the lower authorities.

LAWACADEMY

Search This Blog

PART-2 IMPORTANT MCQ'S OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Labels

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Theories of Punishment

APPEALS - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

JURISPRUDENCE

Theories of Punishment

PART - 1, Important Administrative Law Question MCQ with Explanation.