An aggrieved person can seek review of agency decision by the court provided the following conditions are cumulatively satisfied. In the first place he must have suffered injury or must have been adversely affected by the action of the agency in question within the meaning of the relevant statute. Secondly, the statute or the constitutional guarantee seeks to safeguard the interest whose invasion has complained of in the court action. Last but not the least, the aggrieved person must have exhausted all other avenues of relief or administrative remedies before he can approach the court for redress of his grievances, as a last resort.
The scope of judicial review of agency action is very limited in as much as agencies enjoy autonomy in their functioning under the Statute. However, in course of exercise of their powers agencies are obliged to honor and respect the rights of the individual and observe the ‘ due process’ norms.
By virtue of the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, the courts can set aside or modify agency decisions that are arbitrary or in abuse of the powers vested or not in accordance with law.
Courts can only examine if the agency overstepped the limits of its own jurisdiction or whether it followed the norms or the proper procedure in arriving at its decision. Courts do not usually interfere with findings of fact of the agency but can check on its application of law to the factual matrix of the case. Courts will also not intervene when the errors in agency decision are not so material that might change the result or outcome of a case. However, courts can overturn a palpably wrong agency decision that shocks the conscience. In case of inaction where the agency has refused to exercise authority vested in it, the court can direct the concerned body to discharge its duties and functions.
