FOURTH SEMESTER

LLB Paper Code: LLB 208

Subject: Administrative Law L4 PSDA3 C5

PSDA (PROFESSIONAL SKILL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES)

(Activities and Guidelines)

ACTIVITY I: Application for seeking relief from government, its agencies and
instrumentalities

Each student shall give a critical analysis of one state act along with a draft application to the
concerned authority.

Critical analysis of the Act along with a draft application to the Concerned Authority

Analysis has to be supported by current judicial trend over the Statute (provide Supreme
Court or concerned High Court Judgments relating the Act in a Case Study Form)

Case Study will include-

Case, Forum, Facts, Issues, Applicable rules or law, Judgment, any other relevant
comment.

State Act title

Punjab Right to Public Service Act, 2011

Uttarakhand The Uttarakhand Right to Service Act, 2011

Delhi Delhi (Right of Citizen to Time Bound Delivery of Services) Act, 2011
Jharkhand Right to Service Act, 2011

Himachal Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Public Services Guarantee Act, 2011

Rajasthan Rajasthan Public Service Guarantee Act, 2011

Karnataka The Karnataka (Right Of Citizens to Time Bound Delivery Of Services) Bill, 2011

Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Guarantee Bill, 2011

Jammu and
The Jammu and Kashmir Public Services Guarantee Act, 2011
Kashmir

Odisha Odisha Right to Public Services Act, 2012

Assam Assam Right to Public Services Act, 2012

West Bengal West Bengal Right to Public Services Bill, 2013

Goa The Goa (Right to Time-Bound Delivery of Public Services) Act, 2013

Haryana The Haryana Right to Service Act, 2014

Maharashtra Maharashtra Right to Public Services Ordinance, 2015

 ACTIVITY II Drafting of Writs

Student will work individually. Writ and research work shall be submitted by the Student
Individually.

Case Study 1 (Mandamus along with certiorari)

The river Yamuna and its flood plain along with the Ridge are the most critical natural areas in
the City. The River flood plain while playing a key role in the management of floods in the City
also ensures ground water recharge on an annual basis. Unfortunately, the river flood plain in the
city has seen a gradual land use change through encroachments on it either by illegal encroachers
or most unfortunately by State created structures. The concern in current times is that the rapid
pace at which destructive activities are being undertaken and approved by the Authorities
concerned in the flood plains of the Yamuna puts a question mark on the survival of the river
itself and which threatens the lives and livelihood of the people of Delhi. The importance of the
Yamumna also arises from the fact that the main source of water for Delhi is the river Yamuna.

The Delhi Metro Depot called as Yamuna Depot, the Metro Mall constructed by Parsvnath
Builders and the Games Village for the Commonwealth Games in Delhi in 2010 are posing a
threat to ecology of Yamuna. If such constructions are allowed it will not only permanently
impair the ability of the river bed to recharge ground water but will expose the people to
increased threats of damage in the event of floods in the river. This will be a constant threat to
the lives and livelihoods of the people of Delhi.

A committee constituted by this Honble court titled the Yamuna Removal of Encroachment
Monitoring Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice (Retd) Usha Mehra has been
entrusted to remove jhuggi jhopri and other offending structures from the river bed under Court
directions, the state authorities on the other hand are busy replacing those by construction of
permanent residential and commercial structures in the river bed against all expert advice.
During this time a religious trust is trying to organize a Cultural Fest in Yamuna Flood Plain or
Yamuna River Catchment Area near in New Delhi. They have invited people from all over the
world to perform some ceremonial cultural performances. The organizing committee has come
with a plan to build a makeshift city in river area near to river bank.

Mr. Suresh, a Member of Parliament from Green Party of India, previously associated with some
Bomb Blast Charges and known for radical view on religion and culture has organized a protest
near the fest site. A police firing happened and 8 people died during the agitation and protest.

Mr. Suresh arrested for breach of public order. The Govt. appointed a Committee to enquire in
police firing and they further given compensation of 2 Lakhs to dependant of each person so
died.

Mr. Suresh has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) through his unregistered organization
Azadi Movement in Delhi High Court seeking a ban on any construction activity by Trust to
organize fest. He also sought further compensation to dependant of the Persons died in Police
Firing.

*Draft a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus along with Certiorari.

Do a Research Work on following Points and support with Writ.

1- Is this PIL is maintainable in the light of past conduct of petitioner? Does past conduct of
petitioner affect the capacity to file PIL?
2- Can state Govt. allow its wings to construct heavy buildings near Yamuna but Deny to
Private Individual? To what extant Court can interfere in Policy Decisions?
3- Can an unregistered organization file PIL?
4- How Courts arrive at quantum of Compensation in any case?
5- Trace a history and inception of Certiorari writ in India?
 Case Study 2

India is a Constitutional Country with a Democratic and Parliamentary system of Government.

Ever since its Independence in 1950, India has taken various steps to provide impetus to its
economy, infrastructure and agricultural development. The State of Andhra Pradesh is known for
its achievements in the Information Technology. However, agriculture in the State depending on
the South-West rainfall is exposed to the recurrent drought threatening desertification. Hence, the
Policy makers confronted with duality, sought guidance from the Committee of Experts.

The Committee of Experts (CE) took note of the fact that State is divided into 10 agro climatic
zones and ultimate irrigation potential in the State is only about 60 lakhs hectares out of the
cultivable area of about 104 lakhs hectares in the State. The CE also studied the cloud seeding
technology prevalent in the United States of America. The CE came to the conclusion that for
obtaining the optimum yield of crops like Jawar, the minimum crop water requirement cannot be
less than 600 mm. Finally, the CE recommended for cloud seeding in the needy dry talukas,
where monthly rainfall is less than 20% of the monthly average of last 50 years.

Having regard to the recommendations, the Andhra Pradesh State legislature passed the Andhra
Pradesh Cloud Seeding Act of 2017. Sec.3 of the said Act states as, that The Government shall
undertake cloud seeding, from time to time during Kharif season, in the talukas falling in the
agro climatic zones of Northern dry zone, North eastern dry zone and Central dry zone, if the
monthly rainfall in these talukas is less than 20% of the monthly average of the series of 1960 to
2010.

Acting on the legislative mandate, the Government carried out extensive cloud seeding in the
needy areas of the Northern dry zone and reportedly ensured timely precipitation during the
month of July 20XY. Farmers in these talukas reportedly expressed happiness and celebrated the
harvest. However, the talukas lying in the agro climatic zones of the North eastern dry zone
protested against the cloud seeding as such activity amounts to tampering with bio diversity and
climate modification. According to these talukas in the North eastern dry zone, the rainfall in the
months of August 20XY had been less than 30% of the average of the last 50 year ending with
2010 and such deficiency was due to the cloud seeding in the neighbouring talukas. Farmers in
the North eastern dry zone have complained their crops suffered the yield loss of about 50%.

Being aggrieved, the talukas lying in the North eastern dry zone formed an association called
North Eastern Dry Zone Talukas Anti Cloud Seeding Association (unregistered) and filed a
Writ Petition under Art. 32 before the Supreme Court of India inter alia, seeking a declaration
that the Andhra Pradesh Cloud Seeding Act of 20XY is ultra vires of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of India posted the Writ Petition for final hearing permitting the parties to
rely upon any published literature, maps or documents during the course of oral submissions.

The Court framed following points for consideration of the case;

Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable?

Whether, the State legislature is competent to pass the Andhra Pradesh Cloud Seeding
Act of 20XY?
Whether the farmers of the talukas falling in the North eastern dry zone have any
fundamental right against tampering with bio diversity and climate modification?
Whether, the Andhra Pradesh Cloud Seeding Act of 20XY mandating cloud seeding is
opposed to the rule of equality before law under Art 14 of the Constitution?

Draft a Writ Petition seeking on above facts, and support petition with following research
question?

1- Can a State legislature pass an Act which can have inter-state effect?
2- Can Court use mandamus to command State Legislature to enact something or not to
proceed with enactment?
3- On what certain grounds an enactment can be declared invalid or ultra vires by the Court?
Give reasons with special reference to Article 14.
4- Critically analyze Ratlam Municipality case in light of molding the preview of
Mandamus?
 Case Study 3

In 1966, a service called The Indian Forest Service was constituted, the selection for which was
to be made from among the officers serving in the forest department of the state. Section 3 of the
All India Services Act, 1951 provides that the Central Government shall after consulting the
Government of the States concerned including that of Jammu and Kashmir to make rules for the
regulation of recruitment and the conditions of the service of persons appointed to those All India
Services.

In pursuance of the power given under Section 3, Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules,
1966 were made. The Rule 4(1) of the above mentioned Rules reads as-

As soon as may be, after the commencement of these rules, the Central Government may recruit
to the service any person from amongst the members of the State Forest Service adjudged
suitable in accordance with such regulations as the Central Government may make in
consultation with State Governments and the Commission. (emphasis laid)

Now the regulation 3 of Indian Forest Service (Initial Recruitment) Regulations, 1956 framed
under Rule 4(1) of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 provided for the
Constitution of a Special Selection Board. It provided that for the purpose of making selection to
any State Cadre, the Central Government shall constitute a special selection board consisting of:

1. The Chairman of UPSC or his nominee.

2. Inspector General of Forests of the Government of India.

3. Joint Secretary. UOI.

4. Chief Secretary of the concerned State Government.

5. Chief Conservator of Forest of the concerned State Government.

Regulation 5 dealt with the preparation of the list of suitable candidates. It reads as The Board
shall prepare, in order of preference, a list of such officers of the State Forest Service who satisfy
the conditions specified in Regulation 4 and who are adjudged by the Board suitable for
appointment to posts in the senior and junior scales of the service.

The selection Board was to be headed by the Chief Conservator of the Forest of the State while
the final selections were to be made by the Union Public Service Commission (U.P.S.C).

In the State of Jammu and Kashmir, a person by the name of Naquishbund was appointed as the
acting Chief Conservator of forest. He had been appointed to the said post by overlooking the
seniority of three officers Basu, Baig and Kaul. They had filed petitions against their
supersession to the higher authorities. In the meantime, when the selection Board for
recommending the names of officers for All India Forest Service was formed, Naquishbund came
to be appointed as its ex-officio chairman. The Board recommended the names of the persons
including Naquishbund but excluding the other three officers who had been superseded.
Thereafter the selection board reviewed the cases of officers not selected earlier as a result of
which a few more officers were selected. The selections as finally made by the board were
accepted by the Commission. On the basis of the recommendations of the Commission, the
impugned list was published. Even After review Basu, Baig and Kaul were not selected. Another
noteworthy point here is that Naquishbunds name was placed at the top of the list of selected
officers.

It must be noted that Naquishbund was also one of the candidates seeking to be selected to the
All India Forest Service. Though he did not sit in the selection board at the time his name was
considered for selection but admittedly he did sit in the board and participated in its deliberations
when the names of Basu, Baig and Kaul were considered for selection and was also involved
while preparing the list of selected candidates in order of preference, as required by Regulation
5. However the list prepared by the selection board was not the last word in the matter of
selection in question. That list along with the records of the officers in the concerned cadre
selected as well as not selected had to be sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Ministry of
Home Affairs had forwarded that list with its observations to the Commission and the
Commission had examined the records of all the officers afresh before making its
recommendation.
Aggrieved, The Gazetted Officers Association, Jammu and Kashmir along with the interested
parties brought a petition to the Court challenging the selections notified in the impugned
notification as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and on the further ground
that the selections in question were made in contravention of the Principles of Natural Justice.

Draft a Writ on this Case Study. And do Research with following Research Questions:

Why is the Kripaks case so well-known?

What does the term principles of natural justice involve within its folds?
How is the duty to act fairly similar in the cases of both the administrative and quasi-
judicial functions?
Critically examine administrative Bias? which writ is most suitable against such bias
cases?
ACTIVITY III: Application before CCI, SEBI, TRAI for filing cases

Students shall work individually on an application and shall also submit a research paper
on the legal framework under which they have filed their application

1) Application before CCI on anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominant position

2) Application before SEBI

3) Application before TRAI

The research paper shall have the following heads:

i. Introduction

ii. Functionality

iii. Constitution

iv. Dispute Mechanism

v. Legal Framework

vi. Application

ACTIVITY IV: Application for issuing Passport and cases of rejecting of passport

Passport application form along with the analysis of 3 Supreme Court cases tracing the judicial
trend involving rejection of passport application.

The Research work should include:

 i. Legal framework

ii. Critical Analysis

iii. Case laws

Facts

Issue

Rule Application

Judgment

Critical Analysis