i)Illegality-This ground of judicial review is based on the principle that administrative authorities must correctly understand the law and it limits before any action is taken. Therefore, if the authority lacks jurisdiction or fails to exercise jurisdiction or abuses jurisdiction or exceeds jurisdiction, it shall be deemed that the authority has acted “illegally”. 1 Court may quash an administrative action on the ground of illegality in following situations only: 1)Lack of Jurisdiction-It would be a case of “lack of jurisdiction” where the tribunal or authority has no jurisdiction at all to pass an order. Court may review an administrative action on the ground that the authority exercised jurisdiction which did not belong to it. This review power may be exercised inter alia on following grounds: i) That the law under which administrative authority is constituted and exercising jurisdiction is itself unconstitutional. ii) That the authority is not properly constituted as required by law. iii) That the authority has wrongly decided a jurisdictional fact and thereby assumed jurisdiction which did not belong to it. In Rafiq Khan vs. State of U.P[ii]., Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, did not empower the Sub- Divisional Magistrate to modify the order of conviction & sentence passed by a Panchayat Adalat. He could either quash the entire order or cancel the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Adalat. The magistrate maintained the conviction of the accused in respect of one of the offences only & quashed the conviction in respect of other offences. The Allahabad High Court quashed the conviction in respect of other offences by a writ of certiorari. In R. vs. Minister of Transport [iii], the Minister had no power to revoke a license. The order of the minister revoking the license, was thus, held to be passed without jurisdiction & hence ultra vires. 2 2)Excess of Jurisdiction-This covers a situation wherein though authority initially had the jurisdiction but exceeded it and hence its actions become illegal. This may happen under following situations: i) Continue to exercise jurisdiction despite occurrence of an event ousting jurisdiction. ii) Entertaining matters outside its jurisdiction. In R vs. Richmond upon Thames Council ex parte McCarthy & Stone Ltd[iv]., the local planning authority implemented a scheme of charging 25 pound for informal consultation between corporation officers & property developers. The House of Lords held that imposition of the charge was unlawful. Such a charge was neither incidental to the planning function of the local authority, nor could a charge be levied on the public without statutory authority. The council had misconstrued its powers & accordingly, acted ultra vires. 1 DR. 2