THE APEX COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 392 OF 2008 DECIDED ON 24.10.13 HAD HELD THAT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE IS THAT MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE REGIME OR WHEN THE SUCCESSOR ASSUMES THE OFFICER, HE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO REVIEW AND REOPEN THE CASES DECIDED BY HIS PREDECESSOR. THAT WOULD APPLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE THE PREDECESSOR HAD PASSED THE ORDERS WHICH HE WAS EMPOWERED TO PASS UNDER THE RULES AND HAD EXERCISED HIS DISCRETION IN TAKING A PARTICULAR VIEW. THEREFORE, THIS PROPOSITION APPLIES IN A SITUATION WHERE ORDER OF THE PREDECESSOR RESULTED IN LEGAL, BINDING AND CONCLUSIVE DECISION. HOWEVER, THE POSITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT WHEN IT IS FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE PREDECESSOR WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WHEN A PALPABLY ILLEGAL ORDER WAS PASSED DISREGARDING ALL THE CANNONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW VIZ. WHEN THE PREDECESSOR'S DECISION WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR ULTRA VIRES OR WHEN IT WAS EX FACIE AN ACT OF FAVORITISM. THUS, IF WRONG AND ILLEGAL ACTS, APPLYING THE AFORESAID PARAMETERS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW CAN BE SET ASIDE BY THE COURTS, OBVIOUSLY THE SAME MISCHIEF CAN BE UNDONE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES THEMSELVES BY REVIEWING SUCH AN ORDER IF FOUND TO BE ULTRA VIRES.
