You are on page 1of 19

Page 1 of 19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I feel highly elated to work on the topic DROIT ADMINISTRATIF.
The practical realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I
express my deepest regard and gratitude towards Dr. Sadiya Sulaiman, Faculty of Law, Jamia
Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Her constant supervision, consistent inspiration and invaluable
guidance have been of immense help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of this
project report.
I take this opportunity to thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for providing
extensive database resources in the library and through internet.
I would also like to thank my family and friends without whose support and encouragement,
this would not have been a reality.
I would be grateful to receive comments and suggestion to improve this project report.

SAIMA SULTAN
BA-LLB (Hons.)
Semester-6 Sec. B

Page 2 of 19

LIST OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction4
2. Meaning..4
3. Origin..4
3.1. Working of Conseil dEtat...5
3.1.1. Illustrations.....6
4. Concept of Droit Administrative......6
4.1. Definition by A.V. Dicey..7
4.2. Definition by Waline.....8
4.3. Classification of Rules...8
5. Position of tribunals in India.....9
6. Legal provisions with regard to administrative tribunals in India and their interpretation
by judiciary10
7. Conclusion....13
8. Bibliography.....15

LIST OF AUTHORITIES
1. Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, AIR 1950 SC 188.10

Page 3 of 19

2. J.B.Chopra v. Union of India, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 422..12


3. Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Lakshmi Chand, (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 677).10
4. Keshavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.12
5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1125..........12
6. Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 206.13
7. S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 124..........11
8. Sambamurthy and Ors. v.State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., 1987 S.C.R. (1) 879.....12
9. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, 1975 S.C.R. (3) 333..12
10. State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 S.C.C. 612..11
11. Union of India v. Parma Nanda, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1185..12

1. INTRODUCTION
As defined by Merriam Webster dictionary- Droit Administratif refers to the rules of
continental European administrative law exempting governmental agents from liability in

Page 4 of 19

other than administrative tribunal.1 It is the name given to Administrative Law prevailing in
France in which a body of rules are framed that determine the organization, powers and
duties of public administration (administrative agencies and officials) and regulate the
relation of the administration with the citizens of the country.2 In France and some other
Continental countries, the distinction between private law and public law was observed not
only in the science of Jurisprudence but also in practice. Therefore, the concept of droit
administratif came into play to determine the rights and liabilities of individuals in relation to
the administration.3
This system runs parallel to the civil courts to deal with matters of administration and with
the intention to ease the civil courts from administrative matters while laying separate
standards for administrative disputes.4 It is a result of the doctrine of Separation of Powers in
the sense that judicial power is kept separate from administrative power.

2. MEANING
Under the French legal system, known as droit administrative, there are two types of laws and
two sets of courts independent of each other whereby ordinary civil courts administer
ordinary civil law between subjects and subject, administrative courts administer the law
between subjects and the State.5
Thus the system of Droit Administratif has resulted in non- interference by the civil courts in
the working of administrative authorities.6 Consequently, a person seeking any redress against
the Administration has to go to an administrative court and not to an ordinary court.
1 Definition of Droit Administratif, available at:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/droit
%20administratif (Visited on Feb 27, 2016).

2 Droit Administratif, available at: http://www.lawnotes.in/Droit_Administratif (Visited on March 1, 2016).

3 Dr. D D Basu, Administrative Law 13, (Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2nd edn., 1986).

4Dr. I P Massey, Administrative Law 19, (Eastern Book Company, Allahabad, 6th edn., 2007).

5 C K Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law 24, (Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 4th edn., 2008).

Page 5 of 19

3. ORIGIN
In the 16th Century, the Consul du Roi (Kings Court i.e. executive) gained predominance
with its growing jurisdiction taking cognisance of all cases where the government or its
servants were involved.7 The jurisdiction of this tribunal gave rise to some challenges with
the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
In the 17th century, the Consul du Roi came to be the Conseil Prive (along the lines of the
Privy Council in Britain), which, as opposed to the civil courts (the Conseil Commun), had
jurisdiction over appeals in administrative matters. The Consul du Roi adviced the king in
legal and administrative matters and even discharged judicial functions such as deciding
disputes between great nobles.8 As a result, Ordinary courts became jealous of this and not
only interfered with the functioning of executive but also tried to impede the growth of the
measures which the monarchy wanted to introduce.9
After the Revolution, in 1789, the first step taken by the revolutionist was to curtail the
power of the executive keeping in mind the theory of Separation of Power. So Consul du Roi
was abolished and the Kings power was curtailed. 10 Napoleon who became the first Consul,
favoured freedom for administration and also favoured reforms. He wanted an institution to
give relief to the people against the excesses of administration. Hence, in 1799 Conseil dEtat
was established to resolve difficulties which might occur in the course of administration. 11 In
6 M P Jain & S N Jain, Principles of Administrative Law 27, (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur, 6th edn., 2010 ).

7 J. A. Narayana & Neeraj Sastry, Tribunalisation of Justice: Application of Droit Administratif in


India, 1:3 IJLDA I 171(2015).

8 Supra note 4 at 20.

9 Ibid.

10 C.Sumner Lobingier, Administrative Law and Droit Administratif: A Comparative Study with an
Instructive
Mode,l U.Pa.L.Rev. 39 (1942).
11
Id. at 40.

Page 6 of 19

the beginning, it was not an independent court & its main task was to advice the minister
(who was the judge) with whom the complaint was to be lodged. It had no power to
pronounce judgments rather represented only the governments point of view. Its formal
power to give judgment was established only in 1872 when it was laid down that in all
matters involving administration, the jurisdiction of the Conseil dEtat would be final.12
3.1. Working of Conseil dEtat
The Conseil dEtat applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation and held that administration
must be careful not to create a situation adversely affecting innocent persons by unexpected
change in the rules applied, or in its behaviour, unless such sudden change is necessitated by
public interest and it must take appropriate steps to ensure that those likely to be affected are
informed before-hand.13
It must be noted that what the Conseil dEtat applies is not the rules of common law, of
private law, but simply the principles of justice by which they ae inspired. The Conseil, an
administrative organ has been at pains to declare repeatedly that the responsibility of the State
and its deputies is not to be regarded as in any way comparable with that of a private
individual, but that it has peculiar rules adapted to the requirements of each service and
capable of modification by the Conseil accordingly.14
3.1.1. Illustrations:
Further to understand the concept, following example may prove beneficial to illustrate the
working of Conseil dEtat:
Under the Act of 1872, the French Government had had a right to have a monopoly of
manufacturing matches and for that purpose, it could acquire the factories run by private
persons. A provision to pay compensation for compulsory acquisition was also made in the
Act. However, if a factory was ordered to be closed on the ground of improvement of health,
no compensation was required to be paid.
12
Supra note 4 at 20.
13
Supra note 5 at 27.
14
Achille Mestre, Droit Administratif, 3 C.L.J. 363 (1929).

Page 7 of 19

In one case, an order to close the factory was passed by a Minister on the ground of
improvement of health, but in reality, the motive was to avoid payment of compensation to
the owner of the factory.
In such case, an ordinary court could not have given any redress to the owner in such case,
but Conseil dEtat held that the power was abused by the Minister and awarded 20,000 to
the factory owner.15

4. CONCEPT OF DROIT ADMINISTRATIVE


The concept of Droit Administratif is explained by various jurists in such a way that both the
sides of coin are very well taken into consideration. The definitions propounded by them
serves as a tool to understand the system with more clarity.
4.1. Definition by A.V. Dicey
A.V. Dicey defines Droit Administratif as that part of law which determines:
1. Position and liabilities of all State officials:
2. Civil rights and liabilities of private individuals in their dealings with officials as
representatives of State:
3. Procedures by which these rights and liabilities are enforced.16
Hence, the system of droit administrative, according to Dicey is based on two leading
principles i.e.

The government, and every servant of the government possess, as representatives of


the nation, a whole body of special rights, privileges or prerogatives as against private
citizens, and the extent of these rights, privileges or prerogatives is to be determined
on principles different from the considerations which fix the legal rights and duties of

one citizen toward another;


The theory of Separation of Power.17

15
Id. at 25.
16
A V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution 330, (Palgrave Macmillan,
10th edn., 1985, U.K).
17
Id. at 336.

Page 8 of 19

It was on the basis of these two principles that Dicey observed that droit administrative is
opposed to rule of law. To him, it seemed strange, that when the injured individual sought
protection against the administration he had to turn to an administrative body, the Conseil
d'Etat, which was certainly closer to the administration than the judicial courts. It was this
fact which unfavourably impressed Dicey and was visibly against the very cocept of rule of
law that the law be objective to all in each case.18 Furthermore, the Conseil d Etat being the
administrative body itself was also the appellate authority for cases pertaining to the
government and its employees. Hence no further appeal lies with any authority for such
matters.19 Yet the administrative courts justified the faith that was then reposed in them.
Subsequently, Dicey modified his stand in his later days after examining the things closely.20
4.2. Definition by Waline
According to Waline, the French jurist, there are three basic principles of Droit
administrative:

the power of administration to act suo motu and impose directly on the subject the

duty to obey its decision;


the power of the administration to take decisions and to execute them suo motu may
be exercised only within the ambit of law which protects individual liberties against

administrative arbitrariness;
the existence of a specialized administrative jurisdiction.21

It is pertinent to note here that droit administratif does not represent the principles and rules
laid down by the French Parliament but contains rules developed by judges of the
administrative courts.22 So, it does not have a separate code for itself like the Civil Code.
Rather the Conseil d' Etat has developed and elaborated the doctrines on its own. Sometimes,
18
Supra note 7 at 172.
19
George D. Brown, DeGaulle's Republic and the Rule of Law: Judicial Review and the Conseil
d'Etat, 46 B.U. L. Rev. 465 (1966).
20
Dr. U P D Kesari, Administrative Law 19, (Central Law Publication, Allahabad, 19th edn., 2012).
21
Droit Administratif, available at:http://upsc.oureducation.in/droit-administratif/ (Visited on March 1, 2016).

Page 9 of 19

these new doctrines created by Conseil d' Etat have been adopted in the Civil Code through
Parliament.23
However, the purpose of doing this is neither to justify the arbitrary powers of administrative
officials nor to narrow the field of citizens liberty but to help the citizens against excesses of
administration. In fact, the actual study of droit administrative has proved that no single
institution has done so much for the protection of private citizens against the excesses of
administration as has been done by Counseil dEtat which was considered to be a model for
other countries.24
4.3. Classification of rules
Since, droit administrative consist of rules developed by the judges of the administrative
courts, the classification of such series of rules can be done in following 3 ways:

Rules dealing with administrative authorities and officials- these relate to

appointment, dismissal, status, salary and duties etc.


Rules dealing with the operation of public services to meet the needs of citizens- these
services may be operated either wholly by public officials or under their supervision

or they may assist private agencies to provide public utility services.


Rules dealing with administrative adjudication-if any injury is done to a private
citizen by the administration, the matter would be decided by administrative courts.25

These rules help the administrative courts to regulate their conduct of business which is to
impart justice in cases of violation of administrative law. In other words, it can also be said
that the above stated rules reflect the domain of administrative courts within which their tasks
are confined.

22
Supra note 4 at 21.
23
Supra note 6.
24
Sir William Wade and Cristopher Forsyth, Administrative Law 24, (Oxford University Press,U K, 11th
edn., 2011).
25
Supra note 7.

Page 10 of 19

While talking about the ambit of domain of administrative courts, it must always be kept in
mind that in cases where a conflict arises with regard to jurisdiction between ordinary courts
and Droit Administratif, the matter is decided by Tribunal des Conflits. This tribunal contains
equal number of judges from ordinary court and administrative courts and is presided over by
the Minister of Justice.26
Further, the most significant aspect of droit administratif is that the ordinary courts exercise
no control over the administration which is supervised instead by administrative tribunals.
Although called administrative tribunals, these are independent bodies. All tribunals are
subject to the supervision of Counseil dEtat which acts as the Court of Appeal from all
administrative tribunals.27 Hence this system has come to be regarded as guardian of
administrative policy as it provides an effective protection to individual rights against the
despotism of public administration.28
The Indian Administrative law, though basically is common- law oriented, it has also imbibed
some features of droit administrative as is evident from the increasing tribunalisation of the
decision making process.29

5. POSITION OF TRIBUNALS IN INDIA

26
Supra note 7 at 172.
27
Supra note 6.
28
L.N Brown and J. S. Bell, French Administrative Law 121, (Oxford University Press, U K, 1993).
29
Supra note 6.

Page 11 of 19

In India, the tribunalisation of justice30 begun even before the Constitution which laid to the
foundation of separate courts for consumer matters, company matters, civil matters, criminal
matters, and in the Armed forces Tribunal Act.
Apart from these, there are State and Central Administrative Tribunals (CAT), similar to the
Administrative courts (droit administratif) in France, which pertained to the service disputes
between the Central Government employees and the Central Government and also the intra
departmental controversies as per the provisions of Article 323A (inserted by 42nd
Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976) of the Constitution.31 Like the intentions behind the
Conseil dEtat, the object of this experiment was to ease the burden of backlog of cases
pending before the High Courts and to provide an expert and expeditious forum for disposal
of disputes of Government servants relating to service matters 32. The relation between this
amendment and the common law evolved Droit Administratif was observed as a positive
change even by critics of the Amendment.33
5.1. Legal provisions with regard to administrative tribunals in India and their
interpretation by judiciary

30
Though the word Tribunal has not been statutorily defined, the test for a tribunal was held in
Jaswant Sugar Mills v. Lakshmi Chand (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 677), whereby the Court said that in order
to ascertain whether a body is tribunal or not is to determine whether it is invested with the trappings
of a court, such as having the authority to determine matters, authority to compel the attendance of
witnesses, the duty to follow the essential rules of evidence and the power to impose sanctions. In this
case, on the basis of aforesaid guidelines, the Supreme Court found that the Conciliation Officer
acting under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act is not a tribunal as he does not enjoy the powers of a
civil court; see also Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, AIR 1950 SC 188.
31
Art. 323 A (1) provides that-Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by
administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of
service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or
of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the
Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government.
32
See the Statement of Objects and Reasons, accompanying the Forty-fourth Amendment Bill (later
renumbered as the Forty-Second Amendment Act of the Constitution).
33
Rajeev Dhavan, Amending the Amendment: The Constitution (Forty-fifth Amendment) Bill, 1978,
20 J.I.L.I. 267 (1978).

Page 12 of 19

Pursuant to the amendment of Article 323A, the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals
Act and the Central Administrative Tribunal Act in 1985 was accordingly enabled. And
Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, empowered through Article 323A (2) (d) of the
Constitution34, effectively excluded judicial review of decisions of the CAT by the High
Courts. But a party aggrieved by the CAT order was left the option of challenging it in the
Supreme Court only under Art.136 of the Constitution.
The exclusion of the review of High Courts under Section 28 came up for discussion in S.P.
Sampath Kumar v. Union of India35 (hereafter referred to as Sampath Kumar case) whereby
Justice Bhagawati, echoing the decision of the Constitutional Bench and concurring with
Justice Ranganath Mishra expressed that .the basic and essential feature of judicial review
cannot be dispensed with but it would be within the competence of Parliament to amend the
Constitution so as to substitute in place of the High Court, another alternative institutional
mechanism or arrangement for judicial review, provided it is not less efficacious than the
High Court.
Thus the Administrative Tribunal was seen to be an appellate authority along the lines of the
High Court but only for service matters on appeal from the SATs to the CAT. In such
situation, the Tribunals were held to have the same powers as the High Court under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution. In addition to this, they have the same powers and follow the
same procedures as the Civil Courts, insofar as they can review their own
decisions.36However, while having such powers, they are not bound by the procedural
shackles of the Civil Court.37
Despite the holding in Sampath Kumar case38, the powers of Administrative Tribunal were
still under criticism. Firstly, in equating the powers of the Administrative tribunals to those of
34
Art. 323A (2) (d) provides that- A law made under clause (1) of Art. 323 A may exclude the
jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 136, with respect to
the disputes or complaints referred to in clause (1).
35
(1987) 1 S.C.C. 124.
36
State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 S.C.C. 612.
37
Ibid.

Page 13 of 19

High Courts, the judgement did not address whether the tribunal could strike down a law or
statute as being constitutionally invalid.
This question came up in J.B.Chopra v. Union of India39, where the Supreme Court ruled
that such a power was the direct and logical consequence of the reasoning in Sampath
Kumar case.40 Secondly, that the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to decide on the
constitutionality of orders relating to service matters, such as orders issued by the President
under Article 309 of the Constitution386.
However in Union of India v. Parma Nanda41, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of
the
Administrative Tribunals to decide the constitutionality of service rules.
The Sampath Kumar case also did not consider the possibility of statutory interference by a
State Government in an SAT order. This question was clarified in Sambamurthy and Ors. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.42, where the Supreme Court, while concurring with the
ratio in Sampath Kumar held that any interference by the administration in an administrative
dispute is violative of the basic structure and Rule of Law.
However, in 1997, the holding in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India43 (hereafter referred
to as L.Chandra Kumar case) overruled the ratio in the Sampath Kumar44 case.
38
(1987) 1 S.C.C. 124.
39
(1987) 1 S.C.C. 422.
40
(1987) 1 S.C.C. 124.
41
A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1185.
42
1987 S.C.R. (1) 879.
43
A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1125.
44
(1987) 1 S.C.C. 124.

Page 14 of 19

It was held that the Tribunals were competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory
provisions were in question. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes
for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under the constitutional setup, been
specifically entrusted with such an obligation. The Tribunals while continuing to act as the
only courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been
constituted, it will be open to litigants to challenge the order of the Tribunal before a Division
Bench of a High Court.
As regards the exclusion of judicial review of the High Courts, the basic structure doctrine as
evolved from the Keshavananda Bharti45 case and the Indira Gandhi46 case included the
power of judicial review by the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. This power over
legislative action vested in the High Courts under Article 226 and under Article 32 of the
Constitution has been interpreted as an integral and essential feature of the Constitution,
constituting part of its basic structure. Ordinarily, therefore, the power of High Courts and the
Supreme Court to test the constitutional validity of legislations can never be ousted or
excluded. Furthermore, the High Courts had judicial superintendence over all tribunals and
Courts in their respective jurisdictions and this too was a part of the basic structure.47
In this light, Article 323A(2)(d), Article 323B(3)(d), and Section 28 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, insofar as they excluded the judicial review of the High Courts, were held to
be unconstitutional.
The result of the judgment is that the tribunals have lost their status, but not jurisdiction. Now
it will not be open to a person to go to the Supreme Court directly from a decision of a
tribunal, without first going to the High Courts.48 Thus what was earlier a two-tier litigation
has now become a three-tier litigation.

45
Keshavanada Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
46
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, 1975 S.C.R. (3) 333.
47
Art.227 of the Constitution of India.
48
Dr. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India 615, (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 51st edn., 2014).

Page 15 of 19

Hence, it is observed that a complete adaptation of Driot Administratif is impossible in India


because judicial review of tribunals orders cannot fully be removed. Any law excluding the
Supreme Courts jurisdiction is a prima facie denial of the fundamental right conferred under
Art.32, and thus liable to be struck down.49
In this regard, the Eighteenth Law Commission in its 215th report in 2008 suggested that the
L.Chandra Kumar case 50 be revisited by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. The Report
delves into the objectives of the Amendment as well as those of the Administrative Tribunals
Act. With reference to a number of previous reports of the Commission, the report concludes
by favouring the position as laid down in the Sampath Kumar case 51 and recommending
reconsideration of the L.Chandra Kumar case52, which in the Commissions view undid the
objectives of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

6. CONCLUSION
On the basis of my study on this topic, it seems uncertain as to whether the Administrative
Tribunals in India, if modelled along the French Droit Administratif, would lead to more
efficiency in disposal of cases. But it is necessary to develop administrative courts on the
lines of the French Conseil dEtat because that will serve as counterpoise to the arbitrary
action of the administration.53

49
Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 206. In this case, the Supreme Court
has taken the stand that the power of judicial review is an integral part of our constitutional system, and without
it the rule of law would become illusory, unless an adequate alternative is brought forth.

50
A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1125.
51
(1987) 1 S.C.C. 124.
52
A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1125.
53
Mahendra Khairnar, Administrative law in India; In need of reformation,
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Administrative-law-in-India-In-need-of-reformation4657.asp#.VwE03fl95D9 (Visited on April 3, 2016).

available

at:

Page 16 of 19

However, H.M. Seervai has expressed reservations about adopting this system absolutely in
India simply because it was seen to work smoothly in France. 54 While all praise for the
system, he observes that the French Government was prepared to pay the price of subjecting
public administration to the rule of law by an independent tribunal of its own officials.55
It is noteworthy that the conditions that were prevalent when the Conseil dEtat was
established in France do not exist in India. A tribunal that is subject to its own unquestioned
discretion would fail the basic structures requirement of judicial review by the Supreme
Court.56
The position today is that orders of the CAT are subject to judicial scrutiny by a division
bench of the High Courts.57 This, as has already been discussed, is contrary to the intentions
of the 42nd Amendment which sought, as much as possible, to espouse in principle the Droit
Administratif. It is because of these reasons that in L. Chandra Kumar58 judgement, at
paragraph 97, briefly discussed the necessity of bringing the Administrative tribunal system
under an umbrella that may possibly do away with the ills of the present system.It means that
the administrative tribunals must be made accountable to an independent body which is
neither an arm of the administration nor an ordinary court. Further, the Supreme Court too
must be cautious in admitting appeals from order of tribunals to ensure the efficacy of this
system.
Hence, a partial adoption of the Droit Administratif, coupled with an overlooking
independent nodal agency, both free from over-interference from the administration or the
ordinary courts is one way by which the present ills of the system may be removed.
54
H.M Seervai, Constitutional Law of India 3059, (Universal Law Publishing Co., New Delhi, 4th ed.,
2008).
55
Ibid.
56
Supra note 7 at 178.
57
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125.
58
Ibid.

Page 17 of 19

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS:1. A V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (Palgrave
Macmillan, 10th edn., 1985, U.K).
2. C K Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law (Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 4th edn.,
2008).

Page 18 of 19

3. Dr. D D Basu, Administrative Law (Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2 nd
edn., 1986).
4. Dr. I P Massey, Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company, Allahabad, 6th edn.,
2007).
5. Dr. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 51st
edn., 2014).
6. H.M Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (Universal Law Publishing Co.,New Delhi,
4th ed., 2008).
7. Dr. U P D Kesari, Administrative Law (Central Law Publication, Allahabad, 19th edn.,
2012).
8. L.N Brown and J. S. Bell, French Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, U K,
1993).
9. M P Jain & S N Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur, 6th edn., 2010).
10. Sir William Wade and Cristopher Forsyth, Administrative Law (Oxford University
Press, U.K, 11th edn., 2011).
RESEARCH PAPERS:1. Achille Mestre, Droit Administratif, 3 C.L.J. (1929).
2. C.Sumner Lobingier, Administrative Law and Droit Administratif: A Comparative
Study with an Instructive Model, U. Pa. L. Rev. (1942).
3. George D. Brown. DeGaulle's Republic and the Rule of Law: Judicial Review and
the Conseil d'Eta,t 46 B.U. L. Rev. (1966).
4. J. A. Narayana & Neeraj Sastry, Tribunalisation of Justice: Application of Droit
Administratif in India, 1:3 IJLDAI (2015).
5. Rajeev Dhavan, Amending the Amendment: The Constitution (Forty-fifth
Amendment) Bill, 1978, 20 J.I.L.I. (1978).
WEBSITES:1. Definition of Droit Administratif, available at:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/droit%20administratif (Visited on Feb
27, 2016).
2. Droit Administratif, available at:
http://upsc.oureducation.in/droit-administratif/ (Visited on March 1, 2016).

Page 19 of 19

3. Droit Administratif, available at:


http://www.lawnotes.in/Droit_Administratif (Visited on March 1, 2016).
4. Mahendra Khairnar, Administrative law in India; In need of reformation, available
at:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Administrative-law-in-India-In-need-ofreformation-4657.asp#.VuBbx_l95D8 (Visited onApril 3, 2016).

You might also like