Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks to identify the country associated with "Droit Administration" (a slight misspelling of which is "Droite Administration"). Droit Administration is a distinct legal system for handling administrative law.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
"Droit Administration" is a French term that translates to "administrative law". It represents the body of rules that govern the organization, powers, and duties of public administration and regulate the relations of the administration with the citizens.
Key features of the French Droit Administration system are:
\[\begin{array}{rl} \bullet & \text{It provides for a separate set of rules and principles for administrative authorities, distinct from the laws governing private individuals. } \\ \bullet & \text{Disputes involving the administration are decided by a separate system of administrative courts, headed by the Conseil d'État (Council of State), not by the ordinary civil courts. } \\ \end{array}\]
This system is fundamentally different from the British system, which is based on A.V. Dicey's concept of the "Rule of Law," where everyone, including government officials, is subject to the same law and the jurisdiction of the same ordinary courts. Therefore, Droit Administration is the hallmark of the French administrative system.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The correct answer is (A) as Droit Administration is the administrative law system that originated in and is characteristic of France.
Ahmadi.(as he then was) speaking for himself and PunchhiJ., endorsed the rec ommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323A and 323B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)