Case Number

HCJ 221/64

Date Decided

12-8-1964

Decision Type

Original

Document Type

Full Opinion

Abstract

The petitioners (two of them suppliers of water and two consumers) complained that a scheme to mix the "sweet" water they were receiving at present with water from the National Water Carrier would increase the chlorine content, with deleterious effects on the plantations supplied with such water. More particularly they claimed inter alia that the demarcation by the Minister of water rationing areas was a distortion of his discretionary powers in that behalf, unnaturally combining regions wholly distinct hydrologically, and that the regulations made under the Law were too general and imprecise and left the final decision in important aspects to the arbitrary discretion of the Water Commissioner, an administrative official.

Held:

1. The exercise of discretion within and for the overall purposes of a Law is valid even if individuals may suffer thereby;

2. A Minister charged with the implementation of a Law may, after laying down general policy with reasonable precision, leave the details of implementing that policy to the discretion of an administrative official. It is not to be assumed that the latter will proceed to act arbitrarily, and if he does so, the Minister can review and control his action.

3. Discrimination is not arbitrary when it is the inevitable consequence of natural differences or of justifiable and pertinent technical and budgetary factors.

Keywords

Administrative Law -- Discretion, Administrative Law -- Judicial review

Download

Share

COinS