Droit Administratif

Droit administratif is the backbone of French administrative law, establishing the framework
through which the government interacts with its citizens and executes its administrative duties.
This system is characterized by its unique institutions, principles, and historical evolution,
significantly impacting how administrative disputes are resolved and how administrative
authority is exercised.

### Conseil du Roi

Initially, the Conseil du Roi functioned with a blend of administrative and judicial duties. It
served as a legal advisory body to the king and was tasked with resolving disputes involving the
crown. During the 16th century, the Conseil du Roi's jurisdiction expanded, allowing it to
assume cognizance over virtually all matters. It wielded the power to withdraw cases from
ordinary courts at its discretion, marking a significant concentration of power within this royal
council.

### Conseil d’État

The Conseil d'État emerged as a pivotal institution within the droit administratif framework. It
was responsible for receiving civilian complaints through the ministers, advising them, and
deciding cases that involved the administration directly. Ministers played judicial roles within
this structure, often making the Conseil d'État a mouthpiece for the government's perspective.
Administrative tribunals were primarily convened in instances involving public or governmental
liability, with civil liability cases typically relegated to civil or ordinary courts. The composition
of the tribunals included an equal number of judges and ministers, presided over by the Minister
of Justice, who also served as a tiebreaker.
### Agnes Blanco Case 1873

The case of Agnes Blanco in 1873 was a landmark moment for droit administratif. Agnes
Blanco, a young girl, was tragically run over by a wagon belonging to a state-owned tobacco
company. The central legal question was whether the tobacco company or the government
should be held liable. The Tribunal decisively ruled that the state bore administrative liability for
the actions of its agents, not civil liability. This distinction underscored the administrative nature
of such cases, which subsequently were directed to the Conseil d'État for resolution.

### Post Agnes Blanco

The ruling in the Agnes Blanco case catalyzed significant reforms within the Conseil d'État.
Following this case, the Conseil d'État was affirmed as the highest court of appeal for all
administrative tribunals, marking a pivotal shift in French administrative law. Beyond serving as
a judicial body, the Conseil d'État also assumed roles as a legal and administrative advisor to the
government, conducted studies on public policy, and played a critical role in the gradual
development of the rule of law in France. These changes ensured that the French administration
operated within the boundaries of legality and fairness, aligning more closely with the principles
of the rule of law.

The Agnes Blanco case and the subsequent evolution of the Conseil d'État highlight the dynamic
nature of droit administratif. This system, with its unique approach to handling administrative
disputes and its distinct separation from ordinary judicial processes, underscores the complexities
and intricacies of French administrative law.
Separation of Powers

The doctrine of the separation of powers within the Indian constitutional framework underscores
the division of governmental functions and powers among three branches: the Legislature, the
Executive, and the Judiciary. This principle, though not explicitly delineated in the Indian
Constitution, is implied through its structure and has been upheld through various landmark
Supreme Court judgments, reflecting a complex interplay between these branches, ensuring a
system of checks and balances vital for a democratic governance.

**Key Case Laws Highlighting the Separation of Powers in India:**

1. **Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):** A landmark judgment that established the
doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, underscoring the judiciary's power to review
and nullify amendments made by the legislature that alter the essence of the Constitution,
including the principle of separation of powers.

2. **Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975):** This case reaffirmed the judiciary's role in
ensuring that the executive and legislative actions do not overstep constitutional boundaries,
especially in matters of electoral integrity, thereby underlining the judiciary's role as a guardian
of democratic values and the separation of powers.

3. **Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1980):** Further reinforcing the
Kesavananda Bharati ruling, this case emphasized that the amendment power of the legislature
does not extend to altering the basic structure of the Constitution, thus protecting the separation
of powers from legislative encroachments.
4. **S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987):** This case dealt with the question of
tribunalization and its impact on the judiciary's domain, highlighting concerns regarding the
encroachment of executive powers into the judiciary, thereby questioning the balance among the
three branches of government.

5. **Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955):** The Court held that the executive power of
the Union and states is to be exercised in accordance with the Constitution, emphasizing the
distinct roles of the legislature and executive, further delineating the separation of powers.

6. **I.R. Coelho (Dead) By LRs v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007):** By subjecting laws placed
within the Ninth Schedule to judicial review, the Supreme Court asserted its role in ensuring that
legislative actions, even those seeking to immunize laws from judicial scrutiny, adhere to the
Constitution's basic structure, including the separation of powers.

7. **Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010):** This case
highlighted concerns about the tribunalization process, emphasizing the necessity to keep the
judiciary's power to interpret laws and adjudicate disputes intact, safeguarding the judiciary's
independence as part of the separation of powers doctrine.

The judiciary, through its power of judicial review, has been pivotal in maintaining the delicate
balance of power between the legislature, executive, and itself, thereby ensuring that no single
branch overpowers the others, which is fundamental for the functioning of a democratic system.
Principles of Natural Justice

1. Intro to principles of natural justice, and situations in which principles of natural are attracted
in India.

The principles of natural justice are a fundamental part of administrative law and serve to ensure
fairness and justice in legal proceedings. They are derived from Roman Law and have been
developed by the courts to safeguard individuals from arbitrary decisions. These principles are
not codified but are universally accepted norms of fairness. The two main principles are:

 Nemo judex in causa sua (No one should be a judge in his own case): This principle
addresses the possibility of bias in decision-making.
 Audi alteram partem (Hear the other side): This ensures that all parties have a fair
opportunity to present their case, including a right to be heard and to respond to evidence
against them.

Situations in which Principles of Natural Justice are Attracted in India

In India, the principles of natural justice are invoked in a variety of situations, primarily in
judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, and to some extent in administrative actions, especially
when an individual's rights or interests are affected. Examples include disciplinary proceedings
against employees, decisions affecting the rights of citizens, and any other scenario where an
authority makes a decision that impacts an individual's rights or obligations, this is also
mentioned in the case of Rajesh Kumar v Dy. CIT (2007).

2. Rule against bias (Personal bias - real likelihood of bias/reasonable suspicion of bias,
pecuniary bias, subject-matter bias, departmental bias/institutional bias, preconceived
notion bias, bias on account of obstinacy - doctrine of necessity)

Bias means an operative prejudice, whether conscious or unconscious, in relation to a party or

issue. Bias is partiality or preference which is not founded on reason and is actuated by self-
interest. The SC in Crawford Bayley & Co. v. Union of India (2006) restated that the doctrine
against bias comes into play if it is shown that the officer concerned has a personal connection or
personal interest or has personally acted in the matter concerned and/or has already taken a
decision one way or the other which he may be interested in supporting.
This rule is a consequence of the principles a. no man should be a judge in his own cause, and b.
justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. A
biased decision is is a nullity and the trial is “Coram non-judice”.

There exist the following types of bias:

1. Personal bias: This arises from a certain relationship between the deciding authority and
the parties which incline him to unfavourably or otherwise on the side of one of the
parties before him. In the case of Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar
(1960), the government sent a notice cancelling a 99 years licence granted to the
corporation in 1947 alleging a violation of Sections 10, 12, and 14 of the Mining Act,
however the corp. had earlier responded to the government saying that there were no
violations. The corporation challenged the government’s cancellation on ground of
personal bias of the Minister against the corporation owner. It was found that the Minister
was biased against the owner as the owner had contested against the Minister in the
general election and earlier the Minister had also filed a criminal case against the owner
under Section 500, IPC which was transferred by the High Court of the State of Bihar to
Delhi on ground of political rivalry between the parties. The SC revoked the cancellation
of the licence, among other grounds, on the ground of personal bias.
2. Reasonable suspicion of bias: No uniform cut and dried formula can be laid down to
determine reasonable suspicion of bias or real likelihood of bias, and each case needs to
be determined on the basis of its facts and circumstances. In Charanjit Singh v. Harinder
Sharma (2002), the Court held that the there is a real likelihood of bias when in a small
place there is a relationship between selectees and members of the selection committee,
and it is desirable to that even the slightest apprehension of bias be removed otherwise
administrative justice would be undermined.
3. Pecuniary bias: Judicial approach is unanimous and decisive on the point that any
financial interest, however small it may be, would vitiate administrative action. In
Jeejeebhoy v. Asstt. Collector, Thana (1956) the Chief Justice reconstituted the Bench
when it was found that one of the members of the Bench was a member of the
cooperative society for which the land had been acquired.
 4. Subject-matter bias: Those cases fall within this category where the deciding officer is
directly, or otherwise, involved in the subject-matter of the case. However mere
involvement is not sufficient, and there must be a real likelihood of bias. In Murlidhar v
Kadam Singh (1954), the court refused to quash the decision of the Election Tribunal on
the ground that the wife of the Chairman was a member of the Congress Party whose
candidate the petitioner defeated.
5. Deparmental/Institutional Bias: Departmental bias can arise in the context where, at
times, departmental fraternity and loyalty militate against the concept of fair hearing. In
the case of Hari v Dy. Commissoner of Police (1956), the externment order was
challenged on the ground that the police which initiated and heard the proceedings were
same, there was departmental bias. However, the SC rejected this ground since the
officers who initiated the proceedings and decided the proceedings were different.
6. Preconceived notion of bias: This bias to preconceived notions and is an inherent
limitation in administrative action and thus delicate. Especially bias due to strong
convictions on policy matters. In Kondala Road v. APSRTC (1961), the court did not
quash the road transport nationalisation order even though, the minister who heard the
private operators had presided over a meeting favouring nationalisation since the decision
of the committee was not “final and irrevocable” but merely a policy decision.
7. Bias on account of obstinacy: This category of bias was discovered in a Calcutta High
Court case in which a judge upheld his own judgement while sitting in appeal of his own
judgement. Here, obstinacy implies unreasonable and unwavering persistence and the
deciding officer would not take ‘no’ for an answer.
8. Doctrine of necessity: In case, the only person who can decide a matter is alleged to be
biased, the decision is allowed even though bias is alleged since otherwise no decision
would happen. This doctrine of necessity has been upheld by the SC in the case of
Election Commissioner of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy (1996).

3. Audi Alteram Partem (Right to notice - consequences of non-issue of notice, right to

know the evidence against him, right to present case and evidence, the right to rebut
adverse evidence, no evidence should be taken at the back of other party, report of
 enquiry to be shown to the other party, reasoned decisions or speaking orders,
institutional decision or one who decides must hear, rule against discretion, financial
incapacity to attend enquiry, decision post-haste, should the third party to dispute be
heard)

Audi Alteram Partem or the rule of fair hearing, this means no one should be condemned
unheard, and should be afforded an opportunity to defend himself. This has been recognised a
principle of fair action by the SC in the case of MS Nally Bharat v. State of Bihar where the
government transferred the case of a workman from one labour court to another without any
notice to and hearing of the employer. The Court set aside the order on the ground of lack of
fairness.

The rule of fair hearing consists of the following:

1. Right to notice: Notice is the starting point of any hearing. Unless a person knows the
formulation of subjects and issues involved in the case, he cannot defend himself.
Generally, a notice in order to be adequate must contain the following:
a. time, place and nature of hearing
b. legal authority under which the hearing is to be held
c. statement of specific charges which the person has to meet
Thus, when only 24 hours were given to demolish a structure allegedly in a dilapidated
condition, the court held that the notice was not proper, the court held that the notice was
not proper in the case of State of J&K v. Haji Wali Mohammed (1972).
However, the right to notice cannot be demanded as a formality when the parties are
already fully aware of the impending action.
The consequences of non-issue of notice are as listed in the case of CST v Subhash
Chandra (2003):
a. Non-issue or mistake or defective service of notice do not affect jurisdiction of the
authority, if otherwise reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given.
b. Issue of notice as prescribed by law constitutes a part of reasonable opportunity to be
heard.
c. If prejudiced caused by non-issue or invalid service of notice the proceedings would
be vitiated.
 d. In case of non-issue, or defective service causing prejudice, the administrative
authority may decide the case de novo with proper notice.
e. An ambiguous or vague show-cause notice would imply denial of opportunity to be
heard.
2. Right to know the evidence against him: Every person has the right to know the evidence
to be used against him, if not in original then at least in summary, this principle has been
established in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1955), in this case the
Appellate Income Tax Tribunal did not disclose the information supplied to it by the
department.
3. Right to present case and evidence: A reasonable opportunity to do so must be given,
through writing or orally. In Southern Painters v. Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd
(1994) is the deletion of name from the approved contractors list warranted a hearing
with a reasonable to show how the removal was not justified. However, this does not
mean proceedings should be prolonged without cause or confused.
4. The right to rebut adverse evidence: This is related to the right to cross-examination and
legal representation (unless expressly prohibited by statute as in the case POSH Act). In
State of J&K v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammed, the former Kashmir Commission of Inquiry
Act, 1962, the SC refused to quash the commission’s orders even though the request for
cross-examination was denied since the witnesses had given evidence in the form of
affidavits and the copies were made available to the party. This only becomes a handicap
when in the absence of cross-examination an effective defence cannot be set-up.
Normally, legal representation through a lawyer in any administrative proceeding is not
considered an indispensable part of the rule of natural justice as oral hearing is not
included in the minima of fair hearing and was held in the case of AK Roy v Union of
India (1982). The extent to which legal representation maybe allowed depends upon the
statute.
5. No evidence should be taken at the back of other party: The principle means that
administrative agencies may collect in any manner they deem best according to the
situation, however the other party must be apprised of it and provided an opportunity to
rebut it. This was underscored by the SC case of Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal, Rajendra
Medical College, where girls alleged harassment by the boys who were subsequently
 expelled. One of the grounds of challenge of the expulsion by the boys was that the girls
had identified the harassers through photographs without the boys’ knowledge. However,
the boys had been duly apprised of it, and the college contended that if the boys were
present for identification, then, there would have been great risk of harassment and
retaliation for the girls.
6. Report of the enquiry to be shown to the other party: If the non-disclosure of a report
causes nay prejudice in any manner to a party, it must be disclosed. In the case of
Electronic Corporation of India v. B. Karunakar, the larger Bench held that the enquiry
report must be given as a matter of right before a final decision was reached on the
question of guilt. However, if the same is not shown it does not vitiate the proceeding
unless it can be shown some prejudice was caused.
7. Reasoned decisions or speaking order: Even in case of legislative silence, there may be a
constitutional requirement for reasoned order, it is not required to be like a judgement but
it should record reasons for the administrative order. For instance, in the case of Sunil
Batra v. Delhi Administration the SC read in Section 56 of the Prisons Act, 1894 an
implied duty on the jail superintendent to give reasons for putting fetters on a prisoner.
Without reasoned decisions the natural justice is undermined, as it may then amount to
non-application of mind.
8. One who decides must hear: In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v APSRTC (1959), the SC
held that one who decides must hear, as otherwise in the case of divided responsibility,
the parties do not get the opportunity to clear the doubts in the mind of the deciding
authority.
9. Rule against dictation: This means that the deciding authority must apply his own mind
when deciding and not decide in accordance with the directions of others. In Orient Paper
Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1970), the SC quashed the order of the Dy. Superintendent
levying excise duty passed on the directions of the Collector, while the Dy.
Superintendent was the deciding authority.
10. Financial incapacity to attend the inquiry: This is new concept especially relevant in
developing countries. The SC in Mumtaz Hussain Ansari v. State of UP (1984), the
appellant due to reason of long suspension was unable to submit the amount of Rs. 900
the Tribunal asked to examine witnesses, and hence the examination did not happen. The
 SC ruled that this was a violation of natural justice, unless the authority was of the
opinion that the evidence of the witness was not material.
11. Decision post-haste: Decisions must not be rushed. In SP Kapoor (dr) v. State of HP, the
SC quashed the government action taken in haste which gave way to the suspicion that
the whole thing was done as a high-up was interested in pushing through the matter
hastily and hence the matter requires to be considered afresh.
12. Should the third party to dispute be heard: They must be allowed to heard even if not
directly involved if the decision will cause a substantial injury to him, this was held in the
case of Antonio SC Pereira v. Ricardina Naronha by the SC.

4. Post-Decisional hearing

This idea exists to ensure balance between administrative efficiency and fair hearing. His was
introduced in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978), the court held that a post-decisional
hearing when it was not possible to hold prior-decisional hearing, would also satisfy the
requirements of natural justice in administrative actions.

5. Exceptions to the rule of Natural Justice (Exclusion in emergency, in cases of

confidentiality, in case of purely adminstrative matters, based on impracticability, in
cases of interim preventive action, in cases of legislative action, where no right of the
person is infringed, in case of statutory exception or necessity, in case of contractual
agreement, in case of government policy, useless formality theory)

In Rash Lal Yadav (Dr) v. State of Bihar (1994), the SC held that since the Ordinance for taking
over of non-government schools gave the right to a hearing before taking over, but the Act
following it deliberately did not, by implication it was held that the Legislature excluded the rule
of hearing.

1. Exclusion in emergency: Upholding the validity of a standing order of employee

dismissal in case of Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2005), the SC held
that in an exceptional setting where employee is involved in a serious act of indiscipline
which is likely to affect the functioning of the institution prompt action, which involves
 an element of deterrence to save the situation from worsening, is necessary, principles of
natural justice may not apply in the larger interest of the society.
2. Exclusion in cases of confidentiality: In Malak Singh v State of Punjab & Harayana, the
SC held that the maintenance of surveillance register by the police is a confidential
document, and no principle of natural justice is derogated in doing the same.
3. Exclusion in case of purely administrative matters: A student of university was removed
from the rolls for unsatisfactory academic performance without being given any pre-
decisional hearing. The SC in JNU v. BS Narwal held that this was a purely
administrative matter, and no right to be heard existed.
4. Exclusion based on impracticability: In Radhakrishnan v Osmania University, the SC
held that notice and hearing to all candidates was not possible, in a case of mass copying
in the MBA entrance examination which subsequently cancelled.
5. Exclusion in cases of interim preventive action: Similar to Maneka Gandhi case.
6. Exclusion in cases of legislative action: Similar to the ordinance case, and POSH Act
provisions of transfer.
7. Where no right of the person is infringed: Where an order of extension was cancelled
before it became operational as in case of State Bank of India v. Girish Bihari (1972),
there was no right formed, and therefore no infringement.
8. Exclusion in case of Statutory Exception or Necessity: In the Bhopal Gas Disaster case,
the government was allowed to represent the victims because no other body could do so,
even though the government owned 22% shares in Union Carbide Company and was a
joint tortfeasor.
9. Exclusion in case of contractual arrangement: In State of Gujarat v MP Shah Charitable
Trust, the SC held the principles of natural justice are not attracted in case of termination
of a contract.
10. Exclusion in case of government policy decision: In BALCO Employees Union v. Union
of India, the SC held that taking of a policy decision in economic matters, the principles
of NJ had no role to play. And policy cannot be challenged unless it was capricious,
arbitrary, illegal, or uninformed.
11. ‘Useless formality’ theory: This is similar to the reasoning in case of defective delivery of
notices, unless it prejudices the proceedings.
6. Effect of Breach of the Rules of Natural Justice: Action Void or Voidable

In AR Anulay v RS Nayak, the SC favoured the proposition that any action in violation of
natural justice is a nullity.
Judicial Review – Principles and Modes

Principles:
1. Jurisidiction of SC – 32, 136,
2. Jurisidciton of HC – 226, 227
3. Public Law Review
a. Against whom writ can be issued
b. Locus standi to challenge administrative action: Maganbhai v UOI 1970, Krishna
Iyer’s points in Fertlizer Corpn, Kamnagar Union v Union of India 1981,
individual shareholder personal rights – juristic person behalf
c. Standing in public interest litigation: expression ‘standing’ to include notional
injury, “public duties” standing, “class” standing (Fertilizer Corpn. V Union of
India 1981), Companies Act class action, “public concern” standing (AK Roy v
UOI 1982, PUCL allowed to intervene in National Security Ordinance case)
d. Latches or unreasonable delay, Tilak Chand Moti Chand v HB Munshi 1969,
unreasonable delay bar unless reasonable explanation for delay; Arun Kumar v
SE Railway (1985) 2 SCC 451
e. Alternative remedy; Awadh Behar Yadav v State of Bihar (1995), Sadhana Lodh
v National Insurance Company Ltd. (2003) 3 SCC 524
f. Res judicata; Does not apply to administrative jurisdiction to prove flexibility to
admin processes; Ganapat Roy v ADM (1985) 2 SCC 307| More instances of res
judiciata in case of withdrawl, heabeus corpus, constructive res judiciata for writs.
g. No dismissal of petition without speaking order; Arun v. Addl. Inspector General
of Police 1986. This does not apply to Apex Court which can dismiss a petition in
limine without rcording of reasons because there is no appeal later on as given in
DC Saxena v CJI (1996) 5 SCC 216.
h. High Court must be approached first| Alternative remedies similar
i. Power to grant remedial assistance is implicit in public law review| MC Mehta v
Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395
j. Greater good of greater numbers; Sadhuram v Pulin Behari Sarkar (1984) 3 SCC
410
 k. Compulsion of administrative expediency and the constraints of public law
review; State of Kerala v. TP Roshana (1979) 1 SCC 572, Krishna J Iyer
observations. Most pragmatic approach for dictates of admin expediency and
flexibility.
l. Court does not sit as appellate court while exercising power of review; Tata
Cellular v union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651
m. Policy Decisions; Aruna Roy v Union of India (2002) 7 SCC 368
n. Curative Petitions; Sanjay Singh v UP Public Service Commission (2007) 3 SCC
720
o. Continuous Mandamus; Prakash Singh v Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1
p. Finality of Administrative action; Modes of conferring finality, Finality clause
and power of judicial review (Constitutional modes of review and finality, non-
constitutional modes and finality), Deokinandan Prasad v State of Bihar (1971) 2
SCC 330, Union of India v JP Mitter (1971) 1 SCC 396. Does not cover acts
ultra vires. What about jurisdiction of civil court?
4. Violation of Procedural Norms; SC Observation is the cae of Bank of Patiala v. SK
Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364, seven points are held by SC
5. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation: England v India; FCI vv Kamadhenu Cattle Feed
Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601, Union of India v Hindustan Development Corpn. (1993) 3
SCC 499
6. Doctrine of Public Accountability: Common Cause v Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667
known as Satish Sharma Case
7. Doctrine of Proportionality: England v India; Wednesbury Test, Canara Bank v VK
Awasthi (2005) 6 SCC 321
8. Judicial Review of Administrative Action Grounds:
a. Illegality: Lack of Jurisdiction, Excess of Jurisdiction, Abuse of Jurisdiction,
Failure to exercise jurisdiction
b. Irrationality (Wednesbury test), Articles 14, 19, 21
c. Procedural Impropriety, or fair procedure, as a constitutional mandate, statutory
mandate, as implied requirement due to principles of natural justice
d. Proportionality, same as earlier
 e. Unreasonableness

Modes:
1. Public Law Review: SL Kapoor v Jagmohan (1980) 4 SCC 382
a. Certiorari; Grounds for issue of the writ. Cases: Rafiq Khan v State of UP AIR
1954. Excess of Jurisdiction: JK Choudhuri v RK Datta Gupta AIR 1958 SC 722,
Abuse of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, error of law apparent on the
face of the record as in G Veerappa Pillar v Raman & Raman Ltd AIR 1952 SC
192, Fraud: if decision obtained by fraud or the fraud operates to take away the
jurisdiction. No Indian case law upon this point.
b. Prohibition: Grounds for Issue, Munnusamappa & Sons v Custodian, Evacuee
Property AIR 1962 SC 789
c. Mandamus, Conditions for the grant of Mandamus: public duty or common law
duty, there must be specific demand and refusal, there must be clear right to
enforce the duty, the right must be subsisting on the date of petition, grounds for
the grant of mandamus (all grounds for certiorari and prohibition)
d. Quo Warranto
e. Habeaus Corpus
2. Private Law Review/Non-Constitutional Review
a. Injunction
b. Declaration
c. Suit for Damages
d. Affirmative action for the enforcement of public duties
3. Non-Binding (Advisory) Review
4. Public Interest Litigation/Social Action Litigation
a. Constitutional habit
b. Locus standi
c. Procedure
d. Complexities and problems of SAL/PIL
e. Class Actions