Grounds for Judicial Attack on Administrative Discretion

Judicial review allows courts to examine the legality of administrative actions. The exercise of administrative discretion can be challenged in court on several specific grounds. The question asks to identify these grounds.

Analysis of Grounds

• Ultra Vires the Law: This means the administrative body acted beyond its legal powers granted by the statute. Such actions are invalid and can be attacked judicially.
• Mala Fide Intent: If an administrative decision is made in bad faith, with malice, or for a collateral purpose, it can be challenged. This involves proving dishonest intent.
• Arbitrariness: Administrative decisions must be rational and based on reason, not caprice. An arbitrary decision is one made without regard to facts or law, or on wholly unreasonable grounds. This is a key ground for challenge.
• Irrelevant Considerations: When making a decision, an administrative body must consider relevant factors and ignore irrelevant ones. Failing to do so renders the decision vulnerable to judicial review.

Conclusion on Grounds

All the listed items – ultra vires, mala fide intent, arbitrariness, and irrelevant considerations – are well-established grounds upon which the exercise of administrative discretion can be judicially attacked.

Final Answer Determination

Since all options (a), (b), (c), and (d) are valid grounds for judicial review of administrative discretion, the correct choice encompasses all of them.