After finding that the action complained against of which more below did amount to administrative action in terms of the definition thereof in section 1 of PAJA, he went on:. To hold otherwise would be subversive of the principle of constitutional supremacy.
In New Clicks, however, it was held that the law cannot be allowed to diverge into two separate streams of administrative law jurisprudence, one under PAJA and the other under the Constitution. There is only one system of administrative law, and that is founded on section 33 of the Constitution. PAJA was enacted to give practical effect to the rights of section 33, and the rights in section 33 cannot be accessed except through reliance on PAJA. This may be the case; but in the absence of a challenge and a finding to that effect, it must be accepted that PAJA is co-extensive with section PAJA in this sense is exhaustive of rights to administrative justice.
The relevant passages in New Clicks are the following:. That would defeat the purpose of the Constitution in requiring the rights contained in section 33 to be given effect by means of national legislation. Our Constitution contemplates a single system of law which is shaped by the Constitution.
To rely directly on section 33 1 of the Constitution and on common law when PAJA, which was enacted to give effect to section 33 is applicable, is in my view inappropriate. It will encourage the development of two parallel systems of law, one under PAJA and another under section 33 and the common law. He did find that the action complained against constituted administrative action in terms of section In the public service employment context, it has been recognised that powers affecting the rights, property or legitimate expectations of workers are subject to administrative law.
The case was an application for interim relief pending a full review application on the merits. The Judge held that at least some prospects existed and granted the relief — but the judgment offers neither reasoning nor a final order on the merits and need not be considered further here. The first two respondents, voluntary taxi associations, had concluded an agreement to share the taxi rank in question. The appellants, a voluntary not-for-gain taxi association and a taxi operator, challenged the endorsement as an irregular administrative act that, if implemented, would affect their members, mainly financially at paras In the court below, McLaren J held that although the signing of the agreement by the fifth and sixth respondents amounted to administrative action, the applicants had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that their rights would be adversely affected by the agreement or that the endorsement of it had a direct, external legal effect at para However, if the action did not have a direct, external legal effect and did not affect rights materially and adversely, that action would not meet the definitional requirements of administrative action in terms of PAJA.
The SCA held that while the appellants may have had a case for review in terms of the legislative framework governing the taxi industry in KwaZulu Natal The Road Transportation Act 56 of and the KwaZulu-Natal Interim Minibus Taxi Act 4 of and regulations promulgated in terms thereof , they had not brought their case on that basis. The SCA agreed with McLaren J that the application for review had to be dismissed, but made it clear that the action challenged did not amount to administrative action:. The endorsement by the two registrars provided no further legal impetus to the agreement voluntarily concluded by Bambanani and BTA [the first and second respondents].
It did not confer the authority to operate the route. That was already in place by virtue of the public permits.
Administrative Law | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
There was thus no administrative action by either registrar which was open to challenge by the appellants, either in terms of PAJA or otherwise. To prevent BTA members from using the Port Edward taxi rank would be to frustrate the rights acquired by them in terms of the relevant permits from the relevant road transportation boards, which are the primary regulators of minibus taxi operators.
The regulatory statutes were never intended to frustrate lawful competition. On the contrary, they were designed to ensure safety, efficiency and lawful competition in the public interest. The first respondent argued that the Law Society has an obligation, before deciding to hold an inspection, to afford attorneys — and the first respondent in this case — a hearing at HC.
The first respondent submitted in this regard that the actions taken by the Law Society towards performing an inspection of his records amounted to administrative action within the contemplation of section 1 of PAJA, and that he was therefore entitled to procedural fairness in terms of section 3 of PAJA. The judge held, though, that because an inspection would not have affected materially the rights of the first respondent, it did not constitute administrative action:.
That relevant parts of the section read:. For various reasons that need not be gone into, the appellant was absent from work for a period of more than fourteen days without permission from her employer.
LW4003: Constitutional and Administrative Law
Her dismissal, she contended, offended against principles of administrative justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule. This is surely the correct approach: the appellant would only have been entitled to procedural fairness and to demand a hearing if the action by which she was dismissed was administrative action.
If the action was not administrative action properly defined, no complaint that principles of audi alteram partem had been violated could be made. Mpati DP, for the court, relied on an earlier judgment of Van Heerden JA dealing with comparable legislation to reach this conclusion:. Of hierdie vereistes bevredig is, is objektief vasstelbaar. Trouens, die al of nie inwerkingtreding van die beskouingsbepaling is nie van enige besluit afhanklik nie. The court noted that section 14 2 of the Employment of Educators Act allows the reinstatement of an educator who has been dismissed in terms of section 14 1.
It is at this stage that provision is made for a hearing. The court stated, though, that since the provisions of the section were not invoked it was not necessary to determine who should bear the onus of initiating such a hearing at para The court did not therefore consider the argument. Maleka v Health Professionals Council of SA and Another  4 All SA 72 E see also sections 3 and 6 below concerned the removal from the register of private medical practitioners of a medical practitioner previously licensed to practice as a private medical practitioner.
The applicant had worked for some time as a medical practitioner for the Ciskei Department of Health until being issued with a licence to practice privately in The applicant contended that the removal of his name from the register affected his rights adversely and was thus administrative action in terms of section 1 of PAJA, and was conducted unfairly and should be set aside. This, he argues was not administrative action. It was akin to correcting a clerical slip. Jones J found both factual and legal problems with this argument. In the first place, he held that no evidence had been presented to the court on the nature of the clerical slip.
No explanation was provided as what the faulty IT action was or how it had occurred at para 9. The judge concluded therefore that altering this state of affairs amounted to administrative action for purposes of PAJA:. This, in the language of [PAJA] is any decision taken by a juristic person when performing a public function in terms of an empowering provision of a statute which adversely affects the rights of any person. Jones J then went on to hold that the fact that the applicant may not in fact have had a right to appear on the register of private practitioners did not affect the conclusion that his rights had been adversely affected.
The facts show, he concluded, that the applicant had a legitimate expectation of notice of the removal of his name and a hearing prior to that happening at para The removal of that right constituted administrative action susceptible of review under PAJA. Moreover, section 3 of PAJA entitles persons to fair administrative action where rights or legitimate expectations are materially and adversely affected. This case is therefore a good example of the definitional difficulties experienced in applying PAJA, since section 1 defines administrative action as action affecting rights , while section 3 applies explicitly to action affecting rights or legitimate expectations.
The applicants were all citizens of South Africa or companies registered and incorporated in South Africa. The applicants claimed this violated their constitutional rights under the South African Constitution, and sought protection of those rights through diplomatic efforts on the part of the South African government.
The South African government chose not to engage the Lesotho government. It was this decision that the applicants sought to review. Patel J held, however, that executive action does not constitute administrative action within the meaning of section 33 of the Constitution at para After describing the executive powers sought to be reviewed, the judge went on:.
Patel J noted that a number of considerations are relevant to determining whether actions are executive or administrative in nature. These include the source of the power; the nature of the power; and its subject matter. The essential question, in his view, is whether the power involves the exercise of a public duty and if so, how closely that duty is related to policy matters on the one hand — which are not administrative — or the implementation of legislation on the other — which is administrative.
Patel J saw the formulation and pursuit of foreign policy as a presidential power covered by section 85 2 e , and therefore held that PAJA did not apply to executive decisions involving foreign policy. The case concerned an application seeking the review and setting aside of the award, by the Department of Public Works, of three tender contracts for the refurbishment of prisons to Nolitha Electrical and Construction Pty Ltd. Trend Finance Pty Ltd and another v Commissioner for SARS and another  4 All SA C see section 3, section 6, section 5 and section 7 below concerned the seizure by the Controller of Customs Cape Town of goods sought to be imported by the applicants because they had failed to pay the correct duty amount.
The applicants challenged this as unfair administrative action in terms of PAJA. The second respondent was the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. The judgment is a judgment on an application to amend pleadings in order to bring a review against a decision of the Minister.
The Minister opposed the amendment on the ground that no triable issue was raised. In determining whether a triable issue was raised, the judgment considers whether the decision constitutes administrative action for the purposes of PAJA. The applicant requested the Minister to investigate alleged irregularities in the contract, and, when the Minister decided not to conduct a formal enquiry, sought to have that decision reviewed.
In considering this question, though, Bozalek J noted that since the applicant had not originally sought the review and sought the review only on an amendment to the papers, facts material to the determination of the review were not before the court:. It is open to the Minister, if she considers that the amended relief sought has no foundation in either law or fact, to challenge the matter on the papers [as] they stand at the hearing of the main proceedings.
It would be unwise and unnecessary for this Court to seek to reach any final or firm conclusions on what may be incomplete facts. Each of these sub-questions can be the subject of a detailed analysis given the vagueness of some of the concepts involved and the various statutory definitions that come in to play. The judge noted that the outset of this investigation that a distinction is to be drawn between reviewable administrative action and non-reviewable executive action:. In President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others the Court held that the distinction between executive and administrative action came down to a distinction between the implementation of legislation, which is administrative action, and the formulation of policy which is not.
The first point considered was whether the Minister exercised a public power in terms of legislation in refusing to hold an inquiry. The judge held that if the Minister had decided to institute an inquiry she would have been exercising a public power in terms of section 1E 6 of the Central Energy Fund Act. It was at least arguable, then, that the refusal to conduct such an inquiry was a reviewable decision.
This effect goes beyond a merely intra-departmental impact and in that sense the second leg of the requirement could be satisfied. Holding that if PAJA was held to be applicable, the applicant would at least have a case that the decision had not complied with the requirements of section 3 of PAJA, the judge granted the amendment. In Dunn v Minister of Defence and Others 2 SA T see below under section 6 and section 8 the applicant complained that the appointment of another person to the position as head of the newly-established anti-fraud division in the Department of Defence was reviewable as administrative action in terms of PAJA.
He held:. The Minister is empowered, in terms of s 11 of the Defence Act [42 of ], as well as the regulations promulgated in terms of s 87 thereof, to appoint officers in the SANDF. In appointing Coetzee the Minister exercised a public power or function. Section 3 — Procedural fairness in administrative action affecting individuals. In Maleka v Health Professionals Council of SA and Another  4 All SA 72 E see section 1 above and section 6 below the applicant was taken off the register of private medical practitioners by the registrar of the first respondent without prior notice or the opportunity to be heard prior to this happening.
Jones J held that this amounted to unfair administrative action at para Although Jones J did not specifically mention the provisions of section 3, it is the case that section 3 provides the statutory framework for the decision he reached. Section 3 2 b i and ii state that fair administrative action requires an administrator to give a person adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed administrative action and a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the administrator.
This mis-calculation was remedied at a later date, after the closing date for submission of tenders. This, the unsuccessful tenderers argued, was in breach of requirements of procedural fairness. The court began its review of procedural fairness by noting that what is fair in the administrative process depends on the circumstances of each case at para 19, referring to section 3 2 a of PAJA. The court went on:. The effect was apparently to convert a tender from one regarded by the engineer as unbalanced and a financial risk to one which was acceptable.
- Spatial Price Theory of Imperfect Competition (Texas a & M University Economics Series).
- Defining principles;
- Optima and Equilibria: An Introduction to Nonlinear Analysis;
But the offer made by Nolitha, as embodied in its tender, was not the one ultimately accepted. What was accepted was in truth an offer made on 7 November , some two months after the closing date for tenders. In my view this was enough to strip the tender process of the element of fairness which requires the equal evaluation of tenders. It follows that the acceptance of the Nolitha tender and the award of the contracts were correctly held by the court a quo to be reviewable. Trend Finance Pty Ltd and another v Commissioner for SARS and another  4 All SA C see section 1 above, and section 5, section 6 and section 7 below concerned the seizure of a shipment of shoes imported by the first and second applicants by the Commissioner for SARS and the Cape Town Controller of Customs second respondent for non-compliance with customs and duty requirements laid out in the Customs and Excise Act 91 of That section allows a person seeking to import goods to challenge the determination of the value of the goods, upon which determination duty payable is to be calculated.
Van Reenen J found on the facts in this case that the applicants had not succeeded in showing that the Controller had erred in finding that the actual value of the items to be imported were higher than the value as contended by the applicants, and using this higher value to determine the duty fees payable at para Van Reenen J summarised the argument as follows:. Firstly, that the respondents did not follow a fair procedure or afford the applicants a fair hearing before making the determination;.
Secondly, in the alternative, that the respondents did not afford them a fair hearing before demanding payment of an amount equal to the value thereof for duty purposes, namely R ; and.
- Report copyright / DMCA form for Essential Administrative Law!
- Nabokovs Ada: The Place of Consciousness?
- Procedural Sedation for Infants, Children, and Adolescents.
- Computer Network Architectures and Protocols!
- Administrative Law | tyruvyvizo.cf.
- Geometry of Supersymmetric Gauge Theories: Including an Introduction to BRS Differential Algebras and Anomalies;
Thirdly, that the determination was arbitrary and capricious as it was made on inadequate and insubstantial grounds. Van Reenen J disposed quickly of the third ground. Having already found that the determination was the product of an objectively verifiable arithmetic calculation at para 70 , the judge held that it could not be claimed that the determination of the quantum to be paid as duty was made on inadequate and insubstantial grounds at para Turning to the first two grounds of challenge, the judge began by noting that the challenge raised the requirements of procedural fairness set out in section 3of PAJA.
The judge stated:. Those five requirements, which are considered to constitute the core elements of procedural fairness, may be departed from in the circumstances set out section 3 4 which provides as follows:. Section 3 3 of PAJA provides that an administrator, in order to give effect to the right of procedurally fair administrative action, in his discretion, may give the person whose rights or legitimate expectations are materially and adversely affected thereby an opportunity to:.
There is no evidence that the Controller, as delegate of the Commissioner, considered or was required to consider the discretion reposed in him by sections 3 3 and 4. The judge then set out the facts relevant to the determination of whether the applicants had been subject to unfair administrative processes at paras He drew from this factual exposition that the Controller had failed to notify the applicants the he was intending to exercise his discretion against the applicants, and failed to afford them any opportunity to make representations to the Controller prior to the exercise of that discretion.
Van Reenen J also considered the argument that the Controller had complied with the principles of procedural fairness after the action complained against had been taken. The judge rejected this argument, holding that no exceptional circumstances had justified such a course:. The failure to observe principles of procedural fairness could not therefore be remedied after the administrative action was taken.
The case of Seodin Primary School and others v MEC of Education, Northern Cape and others  1 All SA NC see below under section 6 concerned an application to set aside a decision by the first respondent that schools in the Northern Cape area using Afrikaans as the sole medium of instruction would be converted to dual-medium English and Afrikaans schools. The applicants claimed that the administrative action was procedurally unfair because the first respondent had not complied with the principle of audi alteram partem before making the decision under review.
In assessing the factual material before the court in determining whether requirements of section 3 of PAJA had been met, Kgomo JP for a unanimous court considered the steps taken by the first respondent and the other respondents prior to the making of the decision. After reviewing the communications and discussions between the parties at para 18 , the court concluded that there had been discussions between the respondents and the applicant schools regarding the difficulties caused by single-medium schools and proposals to convert these schools to dual-medium schools.
The court also noted that these discussions were not able to establish consensus between the parties on the way forward. The court stated:. The endeavours were without success. It is to be noted in this respect that although the discussions were without success, the principles of audi alteram partem had been complied with: the principle requires only that parties affected by a decision be given an opportunity to present their point of view to the decision-maker; not that the decision-maker must adopt that point of view.
The court therefore rejected the argument that the respondents had acted in breach of section 3 of PAJA. In Dunn v Minister of Defence and Others 2 SA T see above under section 1 and below under section 6 and section 8 the applicant had applied for a position as the head of the newly-established anti-fraud division of the Department of Defence.
Another person, one Coetzee the fourth respondent , was appointed in his place. Having held that this appointment did indeed constitute administrative action in terms of PAJA see above , Van Rooyen AJ went on to hold that the applicant was entitled to procedural fairness in the appointment process and to review of that process where his rights to procedural fairness are infringed.
After an extensive review of the facts at paras It is common cause that Dunn applied for the post and that the Minister decided to appoint Coetzee in the post. Since the respondents, for the purpose of selecting a suitable candidate, purportedly invoked the formal placement process in the Interim Measures, that decision in itself gave Dunn certain rights. The placement board invited Dunn to an interview.
As stated above, the decision of the Minister is based on a multi-phased process, comprising a nomination phase, an evaluation and selection phase and finally the appointment phase. During the crucial evaluation phase, Dunn was deprived of the opportunity to enjoy any of the benefits attached to his aforementioned rights. This failure constitutes procedural unfairness as contemplated in s 3 of PAJA. The deprivation of such opportunities cannot be said to be immaterial. Self-evidently it also had an adverse effect on Dunn.
Section 4 — Procedural fairness in administrative action affecting the public. In responding to this argument counsel for the respondents submitted that because the applicant for the name change was a body constituted by councillors elected by and representing the people of the relevant geographical area, the first and second respondents could not have borne an obligation to consult.
Because of the nature of the subject-matter, I do not think, first, that the first respondent could or would have been expected to take such a decision without considering the issue of consultation. Secondly, in my view the same should be applicable when the application is laid before the second respondent for recommendation. Lastly, one would expect, at least that the first respondent be satisfied that consultation was conducted.
Whilst the councillors of the third respondent might have been elected into office by the people, on a national issue like the change of name of a town, one would expect them to consider the sensitivity of the matter and to revert to those who had elected them into office for a proper mandate.
In this regard the judge considered provisions of section 4 of PAJA, holding that although an administrator taking administrative action affecting the public is entitled to decide on the steps to be taken to ensure procedural fairness, the provisions of the Act in this case required some sort of participation by the affected community:.
However, because of the nature of the matter, in my view, the first respondent and correctly so, considered consultation. In a way, ss 3 and 4 of s 10 envisage some sort of participation by interested or aggrieved parties. On the facts of this case, which need not be traversed here, the judge concluded that there had been substantial compliance with the obligation to consult, and that the application to review and set aside the decision effecting the name change accordingly had to fail at para Section 5 — Reasons.
Section 5 3 of PAJA established a presumption in favour of persons subject to administrative action. It states that where an administrator fails to furnish adequate reasons for an administrative action it must be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the administrative action was taken without good reason. The applicants in the case had made provisional payments to remedy deficiencies in duty fees for goods they were seeking to import into South Africa.
Van Reenen J held that although the failure to provide written reasons usually leads presumptively to the conclusion that the decision was taken without good reason, the presumption does not operate where the decision complained against is impugned on grounds not related to administrative justice. Section 6 — Grounds of review. This statement was made in the context of answering a defence that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case; but it is to be noted that section 6 2 c allows review of administrative action when it is procedurally unfair.
LW4003: Constitutional and Administrative Law
The fact that the administrative action in this case was held to be unfair, therefore vested the court with jurisdiction to hear the matter. The defence relied on common-law grounds of jurisdiction, but in holding that PAJA vested the court with jurisdiction Jones J held that PAJA superseded the common-law rules relating to review jurisdiction at para 12, relying on De Ville, Judicial review of administrative action in South Africa Butterworths, at 3. These reasons at para 2 were that. A document showing that the first applicant acts on behalf of the third applicant by virtue of the powers and jurisdiction he has over the third applicant is sufficient proof of this representative capacity without necessarily necessitating a special resolution authorising him to lodge the claim.
He found that the applicants had complied with section 10 3 , and held that the decision in this regard was reviewable in terms of sections 6 2 d , e iii and iv and f ii of PAJA at para Turning to section 2 of the Restitution Act, the respondents rejected the claim since the applicants were still occupying the land claimed. There could thus be no dispossession in terms of section 2. The decision was thus reviewable on the grounds set out in section 6 2 d , e iii and f ii of PAJA at para However, Moloto J pointed out that once the claim was found to have complied with the statutory requirements of the Restitution Act, the argument that the claim had no merit was substantially weakened at para Instead, it had to be recognised that the applicants in seeking to vindicate a constitutional right, had followed the statutorily prescribed procedures and were entitled to an investigation of their claim in a fair, objective and responsible manner at para Such an application cannot be considered frivolous or vexatious, and an investigation of such a claim is required whatever the prospects of success.
In Dunn v Minister of Defence and Others 2 SA T see above under section 1 and section 3, and below under section 8 also, the court found that administrative action of the respondents was reviewable under a range of provisions of section 6 2. The grounds on which the court did review the administrative action concerned were section 6 2 a i , b , c , f i and i.
The facts of the case are briefly that the applicant, Dunn, was not appointed to a post in the Department of Defence for which he had applied. The fourth respondent, one Coetzee, was appointed instead. The document nevertheless has to do with the selection of senior management in the Department ; and the Interim Measures for the appointment of top officers, approved by the second and third respondents on 1 July However, since the decision appointing Coetzee was ultimately taken by the Minister, the action was taken in terms of the Defence Act 42 of read together with the General Regulations for the South African Defence Force and the Reserve.
Read together, this framework sets out the following requirements for the appointment of applicants to, for example, the position at issue in this case:. Given the fact that this was a new post and the difference of opinion on the separate placement board, Dunn was, to my mind, entitled to have been granted an interview.
This did not happen. In fact, he was led to believe that an interview was to take place but, in the mean time, Coetzee had already been recommended for appointment. Mr Moosa argued that Dunn and Coetzee were so close that an appointment could have been made at the flip of a coin. From this contention it would seem to follow that an interview would not have assisted Dunn or Coetzee.
However, it is this very alleged equality which, to my mind, contributed to making an interview imperative. Van Rooyen AJ ultimately held that the first, second and third respondents, in not complying with the mandatory provisions of the legislative and regulative framework for the appointment of senior officers, had acted unfairly in the procedures by which they appointed Coetzee over the applicant. The judge relied on comments of the Constitutional Court and the SCA in prefacing his final evaluation of the evidence:.
All organs of State are bound by it. The Council cannot be heard to say that the wrong reference to legislation is cured by the fact that it has original powers to impose property rates. The question is whether it had the power to act in the manner complained of and to impose the rates in question. Local authorities and other State institutions may act only in accordance with powers conferred on them by law.
This is the principle of legality, an incident of the rule of law. Section 6 2 c — procedural fairness. Trend Finance Pty Ltd and another v Commissioner for SARS and another  4 All SA C see above under section 1, section 3 and section 5, and below under section 7 concerned an application to review administrative action taken by the Controller of Customs. Van Reenen J then proceeded to review and set aside the action taken by the Controller on the grounds that it was not procedurally fair.
Section 6 2 d — error of law. The applicant sought the review of a decision of the first respondent in Jicama 17 Pty Ltd v West Coast District Municipality 1 SA C on the basis that it had been influenced by an error of law. The court agreed with this attack and the granted the application to set the decision aside, but did so, in a sense summarily, because the first respondent did not seek to defend the reason it had originally given for the decision.
The applicant tendered successfully for a contract to collect arrear municipal service council levies and to attend to the registration of levy payers on behalf of the first respondent. In court, however, the first respondent made no attempt to defend its decision to cancel the contract on the basis that the requirement of functionality should have been specified in the original tender document.
Instead, it raised five new grounds of defence which, if accepted by the court, would constitute significant unfairness for the applicant:. This would be palpably unfair and in any event would be defective for the tender documents of the other tenderers are not before the Court. Having upheld the review on this basis, Cleaver J nevertheless considered the merit of the defences raised by the first respondent. Share This:.
Help us tailor content specifically for you: Full Name. I Work For Please Provide Your Org. Phone Number. Zip code. Country Name. Yes, I want to receive occasional updates from partners. In certain common law jurisdictions, such as India or Pakistan , the power to pass such writs is a Constitutionally guaranteed power. This power is seen as fundamental to the power of judicial review and an aspect of the independent judiciary.
In the United States, many government agencies are organized under the executive branch of government, although a few are part of the judicial or legislative branches. In the federal government , the executive branch, led by the president , controls the federal executive departments , which are led by secretaries who are members of the United States Cabinet.
The many independent agencies of the United States government created by statutes enacted by Congress exist outside of the federal executive departments but are still part of the executive branch. Congress has also created some special judicial bodies known as Article I tribunals to handle some areas of administrative law. The actions of executive agencies and independent agencies are the main focus of American administrative law. In response to the rapid creation of new independent agencies in the early twentieth century see discussion below , Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act APA in Many of the independent agencies operate as miniature versions [ citation needed ] of the tripartite federal government, with the authority to "legislate" through rulemaking ; see Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations , "adjudicate" through administrative hearings , and to "execute" administrative goals through agency enforcement personnel.
Because the United States Constitution sets no limits on this tripartite authority of administrative agencies , Congress enacted the APA to establish fair administrative law procedures to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process. Agency procedures are drawn from four sources of authority: the APA, organic statutes, agency rules, and informal agency practice. It is important to note, though, that agencies can only act within their congressionally delegated authority,  and must comply with the requirements of the APA. A model act is needed because state administrative law in the states is not uniform, and there are a variety of approaches used in the various states.
Later it was modified in and The reason of the revision is that, in the past two decades state legislatures, dissatisfied with agency rule-making and adjudication, have enacted statutes that modify administrative adjudication and rule-making procedure. The American Bar Association 's official journal concerning administrative law is the Administrative Law Review , a quarterly publication that is managed and edited by students at the Washington College of Law.
Stephen Breyer , a U. The agricultural sector is one of the most heavily regulated sectors in the U. Consequently, administrative law is a significant component of the discipline of agricultural law. The United States Department of Agriculture and its myriad agencies such as the Agricultural Marketing Service are the primary sources of regulatory activity, although other administrative bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency play a significant regulatory role as well.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Main article: Administrative court. Main article: droit administratif en France in French. This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. June Main article: Administrative law in the People's Republic of China.
Main article: Ukrainian administrative law. The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article , discuss the issue on the talk page , or create a new article , as appropriate. April Learn how and when to remove this template message. Main article: Australian administrative law. Main article: Canadian administrative law. Main article: Administrative law in Singapore. Main article: United Kingdom administrative law.
Main article: United States administrative law.
Essential Administrative Law.
E, Sect. E, Ass. April The Yale Law Journal : — Edited by Valentyn Galunko. De iurisprudentia et iure publico.