What is the key takeaway from Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani?

Certiorari lies only when the decision-maker has a duty to act judicially. A purely administrative decision is outside certiorari.

How do we test if a decision is quasi-judicial?

Look for a legal duty to decide judicially—notice, hearing, reasons, and rights adjudication. If these are required, it is quasi-judicial.

Does an inquiry automatically make an act quasi-judicial?

No. An inquiry done as a step in administration does not convert the final act into a quasi-judicial decision.

What remedy failed in this case?

The writ of certiorari failed because the requisition order was an administrative act of the Bombay Government.

Which court delivered the final view?

The Supreme Court of India held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to issue certiorari against this administrative order.

Province of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani & Ors

Easy classroom-style explainer of when certiorari applies and how to tell administrative acts from quasi-judicial acts.

Supreme Court of India 1950 Citation: AIR 1950 SCR 222 Administrative & Constitutional Law Reading Time: ~6 min Author: Gulzar Hashmi India

Quick Summary

The Bombay Government took a flat under the Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance, 1947. The High Court issued certiorari against the Government. The Supreme Court said: this order was an administrative act, not judicial or quasi-judicial. Therefore, certiorari could not issue. Only bodies with a duty to act judicially can be checked by certiorari.

Issues

Is the Government’s requisition decision judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative?
Can the High Court issue a writ of certiorari against the Provincial Government for such an order?

Rules

An executive decision is not judicial merely because the authority must “decide”. The manner matters: is there a duty to act judicially?

Certiorari lies to bodies that determine rights and are bound to act judicially; it does not remove orders that are administrative or ministerial.

An inquiry as a preliminary step does not itself make the final decision quasi-judicial.

Facts (Timeline)

Tenant & Premises: Abdul Hamid Ismail held the first-floor flat “Paradise” in Bombay; landlord was Dr. M. D. Vakil.

Assignment: Ismail assigned tenancy to the petitioner and two relatives (refugees from Sind). Petitioner took possession on 4 Feb 1948.

Requisition Order: The Government requisitioned the flat under Section 3, Bombay Land Requisition Ordinance, 1947, and allotted it to another refugee.

Possession Direction: Inspector was authorised to take possession.

Litigation: Petitioner sought certiorari and an order under Section 45, Specific Relief Act. The High Court issued certiorari against the Province.

Appeal: On appeal, the appellate court confirmed certiorari against the Province but not against other parties. The matter reached the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant (Province of Bombay)

The requisition decision was administrative, made for public purpose under the Ordinance.
No duty to act judicially is in the Ordinance; therefore, certiorari does not lie.

Respondents (Tenants)

Order affected rights in property; should attract judicial safeguards.
Inquiry and satisfaction about public purpose suggest a quasi-judicial exercise.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court of Bombay lacked jurisdiction to issue certiorari against the Province for the requisition order because the decision was an administrative act, not judicial or quasi-judicial.

Certiorari targets bodies with legal authority to determine rights and a duty to act judicially.
An administrative or ministerial order is not removable by certiorari.

Ratio

The real test is whether the law requires the authority to act judicially. If yes, the act is quasi-judicial; if not, it remains administrative—even if an inquiry precedes the decision.

Here, the Ordinance did not impose a judicial approach on the Provincial Government; therefore, the requisition decision stayed administrative.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the limits of certiorari against executive action.
Offers a practical yardstick to identify quasi-judicial decisions.
Guides challenges to requisition and acquisition powers.

Key Takeaways

Duty to act judicially = quasi-judicial; otherwise administrative.

Certiorari does not remove administrative or ministerial orders.

Preliminary inquiry alone does not create a quasi-judicial duty.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “JUDGE or JUST ADMIN?”

Duty? Does the law demand a judicial approach?
Design? Are rights determined with notice, hearing, and reasons?
Decision? If no judicial duty, it’s administrative—certiorari won’t lie.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Whether the requisition order was judicial/quasi-judicial or administrative; and whether certiorari could issue against it.

Rule: Certiorari lies where the decision-maker has a legal duty to act judicially. Mere decision-making by the executive is not judicial; an inquiry alone is not enough.

Application: The Ordinance did not impose a judicial duty on the Provincial Government while requisitioning; the decision affected rights but was administrative in character.

Conclusion: The act was administrative; the High Court could not issue certiorari against the Government’s order.

Glossary

Certiorari: A writ to control bodies that act judicially and exceed their powers.
Administrative Act: An executive action taken to carry out policy or management, not to adjudicate rights.
Quasi-Judicial Act: A decision where law requires a judicial approach—notice, hearing, reasons—while determining rights.
Requisition: Temporary taking of property for public purpose under statutory power.