9229030047

Judicial Review of Government Action before the Patna High Court

Abhishek Kumar

Practice area handled by Adv. Abhishek Kumar

License Number: BR/1810/2019

Last Reviewed: June 2026

Government authorities exercise powers that affect appointments, service benefits, land records, licences, tenders, pensions, contracts, permissions, and many other legal rights. When such powers are exercised unlawfully, arbitrarily, without jurisdiction, or without following due process, the affected person may seek judicial review before the High Court.

Judicial review is not an appeal on every factual issue. It is a constitutional mechanism through which the High Court examines whether the decision-making process of a public authority is lawful, fair, reasonable, and within the limits of power conferred by law. While judicial review is the broader constitutional principle, a writ petition is the procedural remedy through which this power is invoked before the High Court enabling an aggrieved person to challenge unlawful executive or administrative action in a court of law.

In Bihar, judicial review of government action is commonly invoked before the Patna High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such matters may involve administrative orders, quasi-judicial decisions, government inaction, cancellation of benefits, rejection of claims, disciplinary action, blacklisting, tender disputes, revenue proceedings, or other decisions of public authorities.

At Samvida Law Associates, Patna, matters involving government action are assessed by reviewing the impugned order, the statutory framework, the authority’s jurisdiction, the procedure followed, the reasons recorded, and the remedies available under law.

This page provides general legal information on judicial review of government action. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, solicitation, or an invitation to create an advocate-client relationship.

When Government Action May Be Examined by the Court

Judicial review may be considered where a government authority, department, statutory body, or public official has acted in a manner that affects legal rights.

Common situations include:

  • an order has been passed without giving notice or hearing;
  • a decision has been taken without recording reasons;
  • relevant documents or objections have not been considered;
  • a statutory authority has acted beyond its powers;
  • rules, circulars, policy conditions, or statutory provisions have been ignored;
  • similarly placed persons have been treated differently without justification;
  • a representation or application has remained pending for an unreasonable period;
  • a benefit, licence, dealership, allotment, appointment, or permission has been cancelled;
  • a tender bid has been rejected without fair evaluation;
  • a contractor, dealer, employee, or institution has been blacklisted without due process;
  • coercive action has been initiated without following the required procedure;
  • the decision appears arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable, or mala fide.

Whether the matter is suitable for judicial review depends on the facts, documents, statutory framework, and availability of alternative remedies.

What Judicial Review of Government Action Means

Judicial review allows the High Court to examine whether public power has been exercised lawfully. The focus is usually on the legality of the decision-making process, not on replacing the authority’s decision with the Court’s own view.

The Court may examine whether:

  • the authority had jurisdiction to act;
  • the correct procedure was followed;
  • notice and opportunity of hearing were given;
  • the decision was supported by reasons;
  • relevant facts were considered;
  • irrelevant considerations influenced the decision;
  • statutory rules or policies were followed;
  • the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory;
  • principles of natural justice were violated;
  • the action resulted in denial of legal or fundamental rights.

A government decision may be unpopular or harsh, but judicial review is usually concerned with whether it is illegal, procedurally unfair, irrational, or beyond jurisdiction.

Common Areas Where Judicial Review May Arise in Bihar

Judicial review before the Patna High Court may arise in several types of matters, including:

  • service law disputes;
  • teacher recruitment and appointment matters;
  • promotion, seniority, termination, and disciplinary proceedings;
  • pension, gratuity, and retiral benefit disputes;
  • mutation, land records, and revenue authority action;
  • demolition, encroachment, and municipal proceedings;
  • tender rejection and blacklisting;
  • PDS dealership suspension or cancellation;
  • BIADA allotment or cancellation disputes;
  • industrial incentive claims;
  • GST and tax-related administrative actions;
  • cancellation of licences, permissions, registrations, or benefits;
  • government inaction on representations, applications, or claims.

Each area may have its own statute, rules, policy, appeal mechanism, and limitation concerns.

Grounds for Challenging Government Action

Government action may be challenged on several legal grounds, depending on the facts, the authority involved, and the statutory framework governing the decision.

For example, judicial review may become relevant where a government employee is terminated without hearing, a contractor is blacklisted without notice, a pension claim remains undecided, a mutation application is rejected without reasons, or an industrial allotment is cancelled without considering the allottee’s explanation.

Lack of Jurisdiction

An order may be challenged where the authority did not have the legal power to pass it, acted beyond the scope of its authority, or exercised power for a purpose not permitted by law.

For example:

  • a lower-ranking officer passes an order which, under the applicable rules, could only be passed by a higher authority;
  • a municipal authority takes action in relation to land outside its territorial jurisdiction;
  • a department cancels a licence or benefit without being authorised under the relevant statute;
  • a disciplinary authority imposes a punishment which it is not legally empowered to impose.

In such cases, the issue is not merely whether the decision was harsh, but whether the authority had the legal competence to take the decision at all.

Violation of Natural Justice

Where a person is affected by an adverse order, the authority may be required to give notice, opportunity of hearing, access to relevant material, and reasons for its decision. Failure to follow these safeguards may make the action vulnerable to challenge.

For example:

  • a PDS dealership is cancelled without issuing a proper show-cause notice;
  • a government employee is dismissed without being supplied the documents relied upon in the disciplinary enquiry;
  • a tender participant is blacklisted without being informed that blacklisting was proposed;
  • a building is ordered to be demolished without giving the occupier an opportunity to respond;
  • a licence is suspended on the basis of an inspection report that was never supplied to the affected person.

The precise requirements of natural justice depend on the statute, nature of action, and consequences of the order.

Arbitrariness

A decision may be arbitrary where it is unreasonable, discriminatory, unsupported by reasons, inconsistent with the applicable policy, or taken without considering relevant facts.

For example:

  • one candidate is rejected for a document-related defect while similarly placed candidates are accepted;
  • a government contractor’s bid is rejected without applying the criteria stated in the tender;
  • an employee is denied promotion while juniors are promoted without a recorded reason;
  • an industrial incentive is denied despite compliance with the stated eligibility conditions;
  • a pension claim remains pending for years without explanation.

Arbitrariness may also arise where an authority changes its position without justification or applies different standards to similarly placed persons.

Non-Application of Mind

An order may suffer from non-application of mind where the authority mechanically passes a decision without examining the facts, documents, objections, or applicable rules.

Examples may include:

  • a cancellation order reproduces the show-cause notice but does not discuss the reply;
  • a mutation application is rejected through a standard-form order without examining the sale deed or inheritance documents;
  • a disciplinary authority adopts the enquiry report without considering the employee’s objections;
  • a GST order is passed without referring to the reply uploaded by the taxpayer;
  • a blacklisting order contains no finding on the explanation submitted by the contractor.

A reasoned order should ordinarily show that the authority applied its mind to the material placed before it.

Procedural Impropriety

Government authorities must follow the procedure prescribed by law. Where mandatory procedure is ignored, the action may be challenged.

For example:

  • a statutory appeal is decided without granting the hearing required under the rules;
  • a seniority list is finalised without inviting or considering objections;
  • a demolition order is executed before expiry of the time granted for filing a reply;
  • a disciplinary enquiry proceeds without appointment of the required enquiry authority;
  •  an industrial plot is cancelled without following the procedure prescribed in the allotment conditions or regulations.

The importance of a procedural defect depends on whether the procedure was mandatory and whether the defect caused prejudice.

Breach of Statutory Rules or Policy

If an authority acts contrary to binding rules, notifications, circulars, tender conditions, service rules, control orders, or policy documents, the affected person may have grounds for judicial review.

For example:

  • a teacher recruitment authority rejects a candidate contrary to the eligibility conditions in the advertisement;
  • a department denies promotion despite the employee satisfying the conditions under the service rules;
  • a tendering authority evaluates a bid on criteria not mentioned in the tender document;
  • a PDS dealership is cancelled without following the applicable control order;
  • an industrial unit is denied an incentive contrary to the conditions stated in the industrial policy;
  • a revenue authority refuses mutation on a ground not recognised under the applicable rules.

The first step in such matters is usually to compare the impugned action with the exact rule, policy, circular, or condition governing the authority.

Mala Fide or Colourable Exercise of Power

In appropriate cases, government action may be challenged where power appears to have been used for an improper purpose, personal vendetta, collateral objective, or with mala fide intention.

For example:

  • repeated inspections and coercive action are initiated against one business after a dispute with a public official;
  • a transfer, suspension, or disciplinary proceeding is allegedly used to punish an employee for raising lawful objections;
  • a tender process is manipulated to favour a particular bidder;
  •  statutory power is exercised not for the purpose for which it was granted, but to pressure a person into withdrawing a claim.

Allegations of mala fide require strong factual material and careful pleading. Courts ordinarily expect specific facts, relevant documents, and identification of the person or authority alleged to have acted with improper motive.

Alternative Remedy and Maintainability

Before approaching the High Court, it is important to examine whether a statutory appeal, revision, review, departmental remedy, tribunal remedy, civil proceeding, or representation mechanism is available.

For example:

  • a service rule may provide a departmental appeal against a punishment order;
  • a revenue law may provide appeal or revision against a mutation order;
  • a tax statute may provide a statutory appeal against a demand;
  • a tender or contract may contain an arbitration or departmental dispute-resolution clause;
  • a licence cancellation order may be appealable before a designated authority.

The High Court may ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition where an effective alternative remedy exists. However, judicial review may still be considered in appropriate cases, particularly where:

  • the authority acted without jurisdiction;
  • principles of natural justice were violated;
  • the action is patently illegal or arbitrary;
  • fundamental rights are affected;
  • the statutory remedy is not effective in the facts of the case;
  • urgent protection is required;
  • the dispute involves a pure question of law.

For instance, a person facing imminent demolition without notice may require urgent protection even where a statutory remedy exists. Similarly, a blacklisting order passed without any opportunity of hearing may be examined directly in appropriate circumstances.

Maintainability is a crucial issue in judicial review. A matter may involve genuine hardship, but may still require a statutory appeal, departmental remedy, civil suit, tribunal proceeding, arbitration, or another forum instead of a writ petition.

Documents Required to Challenge Government Action

The documents required depend on the nature of government action being challenged.

Commonly relevant documents include:

  • impugned order, notice, memo, letter, decision, or communication;
  • copy of the application, claim, objection, reply, or representation submitted to the authority;
  • proof of submission such as acknowledgement, postal receipt, email, online receipt, portal acknowledgement, or diary number;
  • applicable statute, rules, circulars, notifications, policy documents, tender conditions, service rules, or control orders;
  • correspondence exchanged with the government department or authority;
  • documents showing eligibility, entitlement, title, service status, licence, allotment, registration, or legal right;
  • earlier orders passed by authorities, tribunals, or courts;
  • inspection reports, enquiry reports, show-cause notices, or departmental records, if available;
  • documents obtained through RTI, if relevant;
  • chronology of events;
  • documents showing urgency, financial prejudice, dispossession, demolition risk, loss of status, interruption of livelihood, or other immediate harm.

The documents will vary according to the dispute.

For example:

  • in a service matter, appointment letters, service records, charge-sheets, seniority lists, and departmental orders may be required;
  • in a tender matter, the tender notice, bid documents, rejection communication, evaluation records, and blacklisting notice may be relevant;
  • in a land or demolition matter, title documents, revenue records, sanctioned plans, possession records, notices, and photographs may be necessary;
  • in a pension dispute, service book extracts, retirement papers, pension calculation, representations, and withholding orders may be important;
  • in a PDS dealership matter, licence documents, inspection reports, stock records, show-cause notices, replies, and cancellation orders may be required;
  • in a tax matter, notices, returns, replies, assessment orders, demand calculations, and portal acknowledgements may be relevant.

A document-first assessment is important because judicial review depends heavily on the official record. The strength of the challenge often turns on what was placed before the authority, what the authority considered, and what the final order records.

Before Challenging Government Action

Before considering judicial review, the following questions should usually be examined:

  • What exact order, notice, decision, or inaction is being challenged?
  • Which authority passed the order or failed to act?
  • What legal right has been affected?
  • Was notice or opportunity of hearing given?
  • Does the order contain reasons?
  • Were relevant documents submitted before the authority?
  • Is there any statutory appeal, revision, or departmental remedy?
  • Has there been delay in approaching the Court?
  • Are all necessary parties identifiable?
  • Is interim protection required?
  • Does the matter involve disputed facts requiring evidence?

These questions help determine whether a writ petition is appropriate or whether another legal remedy should be pursued.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Government action matters can become weak when the factual and legal record is incomplete.

Common mistakes include:

  • approaching the Court without the impugned order or notice;
  • not preserving proof of submission of representation or objection;
  • ignoring statutory appeal or revision remedies;
  • filing after long delay without explanation;
  • relying only on oral allegations of unfairness;
  • not identifying the specific legal right affected;
  • not placing the relevant rules, circulars, or policy documents on record;
  • challenging factual findings without showing procedural illegality;
  • making vague allegations of mala fide without supporting material;
  • failing to make the correct authority a party;
  • seeking broad relief without connecting it to the legal grievance.

Judicial review requires precise facts, relevant documents, and clear legal grounds.

How Samvida Law Associates Assesses Government Action Matters

In matters involving judicial review, the assessment usually begins with the impugned order, the authority involved, and the legal framework governing the decision. Engaging a judicial review advocate in Patna at this stage ensures that the viability of the matter is assessed correctly before any steps are taken before the High Court.

Samvida Law Associates, in order to draft and develop high quality cases, makes a review and assessment on legal viability and maintainability of the case on the basis of its proprietary checklist before making any commitment.

The review may involve:

  • identifying the source of power exercised by the authority;
  • examining whether the authority acted within jurisdiction;
  • checking compliance with statutory procedure;
  • reviewing whether notice and hearing were provided;
  • examining whether the order records reasons;
  • assessing whether relevant documents were considered;
  • checking availability of appeal, revision, or alternative remedy;
  • preparing a factual chronology;
  • identifying necessary parties;
  • assessing whether interim relief may be required.

Possible Reliefs in Judicial Review

Depending on the facts and legal grounds, reliefs may include:

  • quashing of an order, notice, or decision;
  • direction to reconsider the matter in accordance with law;
  • direction to decide a pending representation or application;
  • protection from coercive action, where legally justified;
  • direction to follow prescribed procedure;
  • restoration of legal status, benefit, licence, allotment, or entitlement, where applicable;
  • interim protection pending final adjudication;
  •  any other relief considered appropriate by the Court.

The relief must be connected to the legal right affected and the jurisdiction of the authority concerned.

Related Practice Areas

You may also read about:

    Feel free to reach out by filling this form or directly contacting us


    Frequently Asked Questions

    Judicial review is the power of the High Court to examine whether a public authority has acted lawfully, fairly, within jurisdiction, and in accordance with statutory or constitutional principles.

    Not every government decision can be challenged through writ jurisdiction. The matter must generally involve illegality, arbitrariness, lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, breach of statutory rules, or denial of legal rights.

    The High Court usually examines the legality of the decision-making process. It does not ordinarily re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own decision for that of the authority, unless the action suffers from recognised legal defects.

    Yes. In appropriate cases, government inaction may be challenged where an authority fails to perform a legal duty, decide a representation, process an application, or act within a reasonable time.

    Yes. Where an order affects rights and is passed without reasons, it may be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness, non-application of mind, or violation of principles of natural justice, depending on the facts.

    In many cases, where an adverse decision affects rights, notice and opportunity of hearing may be required. Whether such hearing is mandatory depends on the statute, rules, nature of action, and consequences of the decision.

    Non-application of mind refers to a situation where an authority passes an order mechanically, without considering relevant facts, documents, objections, or legal requirements.

    Important documents include the impugned order or notice, representations, proof of submission, relevant rules or circulars, correspondence, eligibility or entitlement documents, and a clear chronology of events.

    Where an effective alternative remedy exists, the High Court may ordinarily require the person to approach that remedy first. However, exceptions may apply in cases involving lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, patent illegality, or fundamental rights.

    Yes. Interim protection may be sought where immediate action is necessary to prevent serious prejudice. The Court considers urgency, prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the nature of the legal right involved.

    Disclaimer

    This page is for general legal awareness only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, solicitation, or an invitation to create an advocate-client relationship. Legal remedies depend on the facts, documents, applicable law, limitation, jurisdiction, and forum. For any specific matter, independent legal advice should be obtained after review of relevant records.

    Samvida-Law-Associates-white-logo
    Law firm practicing at Patna High Court. Committed to legal education and accessible legal information.
    The Firm
    Practice Areas
    Resources

    © Samvida Law Associates. All rights reserved.

    Disclaimer: This website is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship.