JUDGMENT N.U. Beg, J.
1.This is a special, appeal arising out of a petition preferred by Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya Association, which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act No. XXI of 1860). Besides other educational institutions the appellant runs and maintains a school known as Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School, Lucknow. Sri Ram Singh Kotwal is the Secretary and Manager of the said School. Dr. Shyam Lal Pandey was appointed as the Principal of the school under an agreement entered into between the Managing Committee of the school and the said Principal. This agreement is dated the 13th January 1952, and is Annexure 2 in this case. Under Clause 7 of the agreement the Manag-ing Committee had the power to dismiss the Principal in case the latter was found guilty of insubordination, deliberate neglect of duty or any other serious misconduct. Under Clause 10 of the agreement the Managing Committee had also the power to terminate the agreement with the approval of the Inspector of Schools.
In the year 1958 the Principal's conduct was considered to be unsatisfactory by the Managing Committee. Accordingly Sri R. S. Kotwal, the Manager and Secretary of the School passed an order suspending him from the 15th September 1958, (vide Annexure 3). On the 21st September, 1958 charges were framed against the Principal by the Managing Committee. Annexure 4 is the charge-sheet. On the 27th October, 1958, certain additional charges were framed against him. Annexure 5 is the charge-sheet showing additional charges. On the 19th October, 1958, a subcommittee of four members and one convenor was appointed by the Managing Committee to enquire into the charges framed against the Principal and to give its report thereon. On the 26th January. 1959, this sub-committee submitted its report holding that the charges against the Principal were proved- This is Annexure 6. All the members of the committee except one appended their agreement to this report. Only one member recorded a note of dissent. This note of dissent contained in Annexure 7 dated 27th January, 1959.
On the 11th February, 1959, the Managing Committee passed a resolution terminating the agreement if the Inspector gave his consent to it; and, in the alternative, dismissing the Principal In case it was not possible to obtain the approval of the Inspector. The case of the petitioner was thait the Inspector was approached for the purpose of obtaining his approval, but he refused to give the same. The Managing Committee, accordingly, dismissed the Principal on the 8th March, 1959 in accordance with its resolution dated the 11th February, 1959.
2. It appears that the Principal, after having received the order of dismissal, made certain representations to the Educational authorities, as a result of which the District Inspector of Schools addressed a letter dated the 10th March, 1959, to the Manager of the Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya drawing his attention to the fact that the action of the Managing Committee in dismissing the Principal was ultra vires the provisions of Section 16-G (3) (a) of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1958. This letter further stated that under the said provision of law the prior approval in writing of the Inspector of Schools was necessary before the Principal could be dismissed; and, as no such prior approval of the Inspector of Schools was obtained in this case, the Order Of dismissal was inoperative and invalid. This letter is Annexure 12.
3. On the 9th April, 1959, the Managing Committee preferred an appeal against the said direction of the Inspector of Schools to the Regional Appellate Committee, Lucknow Region (vide Annexure 17). On the 2nd July, 1959, the Joint Director of Education wrote a letter to the Manager, Sri Durga Vidyalaya, requesting the latter to cancel the order of dismissal and reinstate Dr. Pandey immediately on his post. This letter further contained an intimation that an case it was not done, the grant-in-aid which was being given to the school would be suspended. (Vide Annexure 18). Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Education wrote another letter dated August 8/10, 1959. to the Manager, Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya, informing him that there being no order of approval in the present case, the matter could not be decided by the Regional Appellate Committee.
4. On the 29th October, 1959, the petition out of which the present appeal arises was filed by Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya Association through Sri Ram Singh Kotwal, Secretary and Manager, Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School, Babuganj, Lucknow, stating the above facts and praying for the grant of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated the 10th March, 1959, and also the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated August 8/10, 1959, preventing the decision of petitioner's appeal by the Regional Appellate Committee. It was further prayed that a writ of mandamus or a direction or order in the nature of mandamus be also issued against opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 not to interfere with the enforcement of the said order of dismissal against the opposite party No. 5 by the petitioner under Clause 7 of the agreement. Oppo-site-party No. 1 in the said petition was the State of Uttar Pradesh; opposite-party No. 2 was the Joint Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad; opposite-party No. 3 was the Deputy Director of Education, V. Kegion, Lucknow, opposite-party No. 4 was the District Inspector of Schools, Luck-now, and opposite-party No. 5 was Dr. Shyam Lal Pandey, the ex-Principal of Sri Durga Gila Vidyalaya Higher Secondary School Lucknow.
5. This petition came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court who dismissed the same by his order dated the 21st of December, 1959. Aggrieved by the said order, Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya Association filed the present special appeal. This special appeal was heard by a Divisional Bench of this Court consisting of Tandon and Jagdish Sahai, JJ. As the learned Judges were inelined to take divergent views on the merits of the appeal, they passed an order referring the entire case to a Full Bench. This appeal accordingly came up for hearing before us,
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that there is no substance in this appeal. The main point argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant before us related to the validity of Section 16(C) which was introduce^ into the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 U. P. Act No. II of 1921) hereinafter called 'the Principal Act" by Section 7 of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1958 (U.P. Act No. XXXV of 1958) hereinafter called "the Amendment Act". Section 1 (2) of the Amendment Act provides that it shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the said Act. Section 7 of the Amendment Act provides that a number of sections, including Section 16(G) shall be added as new sections after Section 16 of the Principal Act.
In accordance with Section 1 (2) of the Amendment Act, the entire Act_ except Section 7 was brought into force on the 23rd January, 1959, by a Government notification issued on that date Section 9 of the Amendment Act lays down that :-
"The State Government may for the purpose of removing any difficulties in relation to the enforcement of this Act by Order published in the official Gazette direct that this Act shall during such period as may be specified in the Order, take effect subject to such adaptations whether by way of modification, addition or omission, as it may deem to be necessary or expedient and may make such other temporary provisions for the purpose of removing any such difficulty as it may deem to be necessary or expedient:
Provided that no such order shall be made after twelve months of the date of the commencement of this Act,''
7. In exercise of the powers conferred by this section the Government issued two Removal of Difficulties Orders on the 26th January, 1959. Paragraph 2 of the First Removal of Difficulties Order provides that Section 16 G introduced by Section 7 of the Amendment Act shall be added after Section 16 of the Principal Act with effect from, such date as the State Government may notify in respect of it. A notification was issued by the Government on the same date stating that:
"......the Governor is pleased to direct that Section 7 of the aforesaid Act as amended under the Intermediate Education (Removal of Difficulties) Order (1st) dated January 26, 1959, shall come into force with effect from January 26, 1959."
The argument of the learned Counsel in this connection is that the above notification indicates that Section 16 G was added to the Principal Act by the first Order prior to the coming into force of Section 7 of the Amendment Act itself. The result, according to the learned Counsel is that Section 7 was itself not alive at the actual moment when the amendment was introduced. In the absence of Section 7, the amendment which derived its force from it cannot stand and must fall. The learned Counsel, therefore, argued that the amendment of the Principal Act by the addition of Section 16 G thereto; must be held to be bad in law.
8. The second part of the argument of the learned Counsel in this connection related to the Removal of Difficulties Order No. 2, which was also passed on the same date, i.e., January 26, 1959. Paragraph 2 (2) of this Order provides that Sub-section 1 (1) of Section 16-G shall be read as follows :
"The existing agreements between the management of an institution on the one hand and any Principal, Headmaster or teacher, as the case may be, on the other, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or with the Regulations shall be void.''
9. Under Section 16-G, prior approval of the Inspector of Schools was a condition precedent to the dismissal from service of the Principal of a school. As a result of the above provision of law, Section 16-G would have retrospective operation and would become applicable to the present case with the result that Dr. Pandey could not be dismissed from service without the prior approval of the Inspector. The learned counsel argued that this provision of law was also 'ultra vires' of Section 9 of the Amendment Act. The contention of the learned counsel was that under Section 9 of the Amendment Act, the Government could only pass Removal of Difficulties Orders in relation to the enforcement of the said Act. The above modification of Section 16-G made by the second Order does not relate to the enforcement of the Amendment Act at all. The moderation made by the second order being delegated legislation, the powers of the agent must be confined within the ambit of the mandate which was contained in Section 9 of the Amendment Act. The powers having been exceeded in the present case, the amendment of Section 16-G by the Removal of Difficulties Order No. 2 was also 'ultra vires' and incompetent.
The argument of the learned counsel there-fore. was a two-fold one. Firstly the amendment introduced by Section 16-G was itself ineffective Secondly, the amendment of the law so as to give it retrospective effect was also 'ultra vires'. If this argument is accepted, the learned counsel argued that Annexure 12 i.e. Order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 10th March, 1959, and Annexure 20, i.e. the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 8/10th August, 1959, must be held to be bad in law in so far as they were based on the assumption that prior approval of the Inspector of Schools was necessary before the dismissal of the Principal and that the said amendment had retrospective application to pre-existing agreement.
10. We do not, however, think it necessary to enter into this legal question or to decide it, as we are of opinion that this appeal can be disposed of on the short ground that none of the two impugned orders affects the legal right of the petitioner to dismiss the Principal. The orders in question arc merely of a recommendatory nature, and have obviously no binding effect on the petitioner. The petitioner is at perfect liberty to ignore or disregard them. In fast it is a misnomer to call them orders. They are in the nature of advice. In other words, they are mere recommendations which may be accepted Or disregarded with impunity by the peti-tioner according to its option.
11. Relief by way of writ is a discretionary one. In our opinion in the circumstances of the pre-sent case, it should not be granted unless the petitioner is able to make out that the impugned orders in any way affect or imperil any legal right claimed by him. In the present case, it has not been made out before us that the orders in question infringe any legal right of the petitioner. The legal right sought to be established by the petitioner by the present writ petition is its right to dismiss the Principal. This legal right, if any, is, in our opinion absolutely unaffected by either of the two impugned orders, 12 Faced with this position, the learned counsel for the petitioner had to concede that the two impugned orders do not touch any legal right of the petitioner at all. He, however, argued that they constituted a threat to his legal right. We find it difficult to endorse, this part of the Argument of the learned counsel also. We are unable to see how they stand in the way of the exercise of the right of dismissal, if any, possessed by the petitioner. There is no threat of any kind contained in any of these so-called orders.
13. Under the second part of Article 226, a writ is usually issued only if the applicant has a legal right, and legal right is found by the Court to have been infringed (vide State of Orissa v. Mandan Gopal, AIR 1952 SC 12). With certain exceptions as in the case of Habeas Corpus or Quo Warranto a Court exercising Writ jurisdiction would be disinclined to grant relief unless the petitioner, is able to make out that hp is an aggrieved party, i.e. his own rights are affected. As observed by Mukherjee J. in Charanjit Lal v. Union-of India. AIR 1951. SC 41 at p. 52 ''it is not competent to one person to seek tr enforce the rights of another except where the law permits him to do so".
This principle would be particularly applicable in a case, where, as in the present the question of the validity of a niece of legislation is raised. The principle laid down in a number of American cases "that no one except those whose rights are directly affected by a law can raise the question of the constitutionality of that law" was expressly approved of by Fazl Ali, J. at page 44 of his judgment in the above case. There appear to be good grounds for holding that the same principle should be applicable to cases where the question of the validity of a provision of law is agitated.
In the present case it appears to us that the impugned orders do not affect any person's legal rights. Where neither the legal rights of a party nor of any person in the world are affected we fail to understand how the petitioner, or for the matter of that any person can come to Court and seek any legal relief in respect of them. All that the learned counsel could tell us was that the said. Orders were hurtful to the feelings of the petitioner, hence he was an aggrieved party. Law, however, cannot take note of the mental or even sentimental injury caused to any person for the purpose of granting relief under Article 226. The only injury that it can recognise is legal injury. In the present case it cannot be said that any legal injury is caused or can be caused to the petitioner or to any person as a result of the aforesaid Orders.
This appeal, therefore, should be dismissed on the ground that the orders in question are incapable of causing any legal injury to any person, and hence no one can be said to be legally aggrieved by them. Unless a matter is capable of being drawn within the legal sphere, no legal relief can be afforded in respect of it and the matter would remain in a region beyond even the striking range of Article 226 of the Constitution.
14. In this situation, the learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to a third order which is contained in Annexure 18 dated the 2nd July, 1959. In this letter the Joint Director of Education has requested the Manager of the School to cancel the order of dismissal and reinstate Dr. Pandey, and has further stated that if that was not done, the aid of the school would be suspended. The learned counsel argued that in this letter a threat to suspend the grant-in-aid made to the school was extended and, therefore, this letter did contain a threat to the petitioner's legal right to grant-in-aid. This argument of the learned counsel appears to be obviously fallacious and must be repelled on two grounds.
The first ground is that this order was not made the subject-matter of attack in the writ petition at all. No relief in respect of the grant-in-aid is asked for, and, in this situation, in our opinion it will not be justifiable to extend the ambit of the present writ petition by including within it a mutter which is foreign to the sphere of controversy raised therein. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of the Tropical Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (S) AIR 1955 SC 789. "the petitioners cannot be allowed now to urge grounds which they had not taken in their petitions" (p. 790 col. 2). Similarly, in Karamdeo Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1956 Pat 228, it was held that points not raised in the application under Article 228 cannot be allowed to He raised for the first time at the hearing as the State had no opportunity to meet them (vide page 231). The second answer to this argument is that the right to obtain grant-in-aid is a right different from the right to dismiss the Principal. The two rights are independent of and, separate, from each other and we fail to understand how a threat to one right can in law constitute a threat to another.
15. We may also mention in this , connection that the learned counsel for the appellant wanted to argue that the grant-in-aid was a matter of right in the present case. On the other hand, this position was strongly repudiated on behalf of the opposite parties, and it was stated that the grant-in-aid was a mere matter of discretion. We, however, did not allow the parties to argue this point, before us, as we were of opinion that the said, question did riot arise in this case at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case was referred to the Full Bench-primarily on the ground that the two learned Judges who were members of the Divisional Bench were inclined to take divergent views on this very point. If that was the position, we are of opinion that it was not necessary to refer the case to a Full Bench at all. This point is capable, of being disposed of summarily on the ground that it did not arise on the pleadings of the parties in this-writ petition.
16. In this connection it may also be noted that what is referred to the Full Bench is not any specific point or any particular question of law arising in the case, but the entire case itself. Under the circumstances, we feel that we are not called upon to decide this point in the present case. We may observe that the relief by way of writ is a proceeding of an exceptional type. The Court should not allow it to be utilised by a party for the purpose, of obtaining its opinion on hypothetical and abstract questions, not directly arising in the case before it, nor for the purpose of seeking declarations that are futile and irrelevant so far as the matter in the issue is concerned. While exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Courts in India do not act in an advisory ; capacity and however fascinating might appear to be the form in which a party is able to present a legal question before the Court the latter should resist the temptation of entering into this alluring region unless the legal question posed before it can be shown to be directly related to the specific right sought to be asserted or enforced in the writ petition itself. The primary purpose of Article 226 seems to be the enforcement of legal rights and obligations and not their declaration in vacuo.
17. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the orders, in question are capable of being struck down by this Court by the issue of a writ of certiorari. We find it difficult to accept this contention also. This argument seems to ignore the distinction between administrative or ministerial and judicial or quasi-judicial orders. The dividing line between the two is no doubt a dim one, because there may be orders which embody within themselves the essential features of both. It is, therefore not possible to lay down a conclusive or a clinching test that might enable one to clearly see the line of demarcation between the two. Several criteria have, however, been laid down in a number of cases, both English as well as Indian.
18. In the well-known case of R. v. Dublin Corporation. (1878) 2 LR Jr. 371 (376), May, C. J. while dealing with the distinction between an administrative or ministerial act and a judicial or a quasi-judicial act, observed that one distinguishing feature between the two was that the latter category of acts resulted in "imposing liability or affecting the rights of others." The distinction drawn by May C, J., between administrative or executive and judicial or quasi-judicial acts in the above case was considered by 'Lord Atkinson in Frome United Breweries Co. v. Bath Justicess (1926) AC 586 (602) ; 95 LJ KB 730, as one of the finest expositions of the principles underlying the law on this subject The same distinction appears to have been approved of by Palles, C. B, in the case of R. v. Local Govt. Board, (1902) 2 IR 349 (373, 374) : 35 ILT 87. where it is observed that one of the essential elements of a judicial or quasi-judicial order as distinguished from an administrative or ministerial order is that the former has power by its determination ''to Impose liability or affect rights."
19. Another distinction between the two classes of cases, that was emphasised by Atkin L. J. in R. v. Electricity Commrs., (1924) 1 KB 171 (205) : 93 LJ KB 390 is that in cases of acts that are amenable to writs of certiorari or prohibition the authority concerned is not only legally empowered to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects but is also laid under "a duty to act judicially."
20. In India this point became the subject-matter of elaborate discussion in the case of Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S. Advani, AIR 1950 SC 222. In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court have emphasised the second aspect rather than the first. Fail Ali J., while dealing with this point observed as follows :
"It is the manner in which the decision has to be arrived at which makes the difference, and the real test is:--Is there any duty to act judicially?", (p. 229).
Similarly S. R. Das, J., laid down the test as follows :
"The real test which distinguishes a quasi-judicial act from an administrative act is the third item in Atkin, L. J.'s definition, namely, the duty to act judicially." (p. 257).
This would involve the observance of a pattern of judicial procedure by the authority concerned.
21. In his S. A. de Smith's book styled as "Judicial Review of Administrative Action" (1959 Edition) at pages 37-47 the learned author has laid down the following four tests for distinguishing an administrative function from a judicial function :
(1) Whether the performance of the function terminates in an order that has a binding and conclusive effect?
(2) Whether the manner of determination proceeds on any pattern of judicial procedure?
(3) Whether the final decision is arrived at by the application of a pre-existing legal rule or any fixed objective standard to the facts of the situation?
(4) Whether such final decision has the effect of altering the rights of obligations ol parties, or, in any way, affecting their rights or liabilities?
Looking at the matter in the light of the principles enunciated above, it appears to us that both the orders fail to achieve the status and rank of a judicial or even a quasi-judicial order. Neither of the two orders affects the rights or liabilities of any party nor were the authorities passing them enjoined by any law to act judicially in the matter. Both of them appear to be merely , discretionary orders passed by the authorities concerned in their executive capacity. In R. Abdulla Rowther v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, AIR 1959 SC 896 it was laid down that executive instructions issued by the Government for the guidance of authorities subordinate to them are mere administrative directions. Such orders being merely of an administrative nature, their breach even if patent, might expose such authorities to disciplinary or other appropriate action, but it cannot justify the issue of a writ of certiorari. Unless^ therefore, the matter can be brought down to a legal plane, the writ of certiorari cannot reach it. Wo have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the orders in question fall completely outside the bounds of the jurisdiction of the Court as carved out by the writ of certiorari.
22. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that, in any case, powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the issue of writs. They are much wider and extend to the passing of any directions or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights "and for any other purpose". In view of this situation, the learned Counsel argued that even administrative orders passed by an executive authority might be upset if they are without jurisdiction as being contrary to the express provisions of law or in excess of the powers conferred by law On such an autho-rity. This may be so. It has. however, to be remembered that the phrase ''and for any other purpose" does not give the High Court an untrammelled right to pass any order that it pleases. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1952 SC 12, "the concluding words of Article 226 have to be read in the context of what precedes the same." (p. 13). In any case, we are not satisfied that the impugned orders can be considered as being without jurisdiction in either of the above senses. This contention of the learned counsel obviously seems to ignore the provisions of Chapter. II, paragraph 6 (a) of the Educational Code of Uttar Pradesh, 1958, the first part of which lays down as follows :
"In each district, there is a District Inspector of Schools, who is responsible for the supervision, control and inspection of educational institutions in general and of institutions for boys in particular. He is under the administrative control of the Regional Deputy Director."
This provision of law therefore, does provide for supervisory control of educational institutions by the Government authorities mentioned therein. In our opinion, the District Inspector of Schools as well as the Deputy Director of Education had jurisdiction to issue the letters of instructions contained in Annexures 12 and 20 under the above provision of law. The instructions contained therein cannot, therefore, be considered to be beyond their jurisdiction. In fact, as supervisory authorities, it would be a part of their duty to issue such directions to educational institutions placed in their charge as and when they thought it necessary or expedient to do so. Such orders are merely directions of an executive or administrative nature. They are issued for the guidance of educational institutions which are as it were, placed by law under their guardianship. By disobeying or disregarding them the educational institutions concerned commit no legal wrong though they might lay themselves open to such departmental or disciplinary or even retaliatory action on the part of their governmental heads that the latter might-choose to take in the matter.
They are issued by the educational authorities concerned in the regular course of their official business as supervisory bodies, and in the usual discharge of their duties as such. The instructions issued by such authorities might be right or wrong. It is not, however, for the Courts exercising writ jurisdiction to sit in judgment over them and to superimpose their own views in matters in which the legislature has thought fit to clothe them with plenary jurisdiction. It cannot, therefore, be said that in passing the impugned orders, the educational authorities which are arrayed as opposite-parties Nos. 2 to 4 in this petition, were, in any way, acting in excess of any legal right possessed by them or trespassing on any legal right possessed by the petitioner; nor can it be said in the present case that in doing so, they were in any way contravening any provision of law or of the Constitution.
23. In the case of Manjula Manjari Dei v. Director of Public Instruction, AIR 1952 Orissa 844. the petitioner had filed a writ petition complaining that the order of the Director of Public Instruction in setting up a committee for approval of text books and in dropping the petitioner's publication from the list of approved text books, being contrary to rules, was liable to be quashed by writ proceedings. Panigrahi, J. held that the petitioner had failed to establish that he had any legal right in the matter. The choice of books being entirely in the discretion of the Director of Public Instruction, the latter was under no legal obligation to recognise any particular publication as a text book. In this case also a similar argument was advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, and it was contended that the effect of the use of the phrase ''and for any other purpose" was to widen the scope of application of Article 220 so as to entitle the Court to grant reliefs apart from any legal rights or obligations.
While repelling this argument Jagannadha Das C. J. made the following significant observations :
"The arguments have accordingly covered a wide range but it had to be admitted that the very wide language used in Article 226 cannot be construed to vest in us unrestricted powers to administer supposed equity not based on a justiciable foundation." (p. 349).
The last contention of the learned counsel for the appellant therefore, also fails.
24. For the above reasons, we are of opinion that there is no force in this appeal. We accord-ingly dismiss it with costs.