HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (C) Np. 1434 OF 2009 PETITIONER Dr. AK Dubey ^' Vs RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and three others. O R D ER POST ON 2^ MARCH, 2009 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 33. 3.2009 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Cl No.1434 OF 2009 Writ oetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. PETITIONER Dr. AK Dubey, S/o Late DD Dubey, Aged about 47 years, Reader, Civil Engineering, GEC, Raipur, R/o B-13, Nagar, Raipur (CG) Gayatri v s RESPONDENTS 1. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh- Through Secretary to Govt. Public Works Department, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, NH 8s Bridge Zone, Near OCM Chowk, Raipur (CG) KK Shrivastava Aged about 60 years, Chief Engineer PWD (Retd.) R/o F-1, PWD Colony, Pension Wada, Raipur (CG) KK Pipri, Incharge Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, NH 85 Bridge Zone, Near OCM Chowk, Raipur (CG) Present: Mr. Rakesh Shrouti Pandey, Advocates. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer. and Mr. A.N. For the petitioner For State/respondents No. 1& 2 OR D E R (Passed on^^March, 2009) Dhirendra Mishra, J The petitioner is a Reader in Civil Engineering Department of Government Engineering College, Raipur. Public Works Department of the State of Chhattisgarh vide its order dated 13th March, 2001 (Annexure P/2) decided that proof checking of drawing-design and working plan (architectural) etc. of sanctioned/under-construction major bridges and buildings shall be done by Engineering Colleges of the State where necessary facilities are available, on payment of prescribed fee. All the '2 /<°; Executive Engineers were directed to appoint "Proof Consultants". The Government Engineering College, Raipur has been upgraded as National Institute of Technology (in short aNIT??) and placed under the Ministry of Human Resources Development from the year 2005. Construction work of Railway Over Bridge (in short (<ROB??) on Bilaspur-Katni railway line near Uslapur has been entrusted by the Pubic Works Department (in short "PWD??) to contractor M/s Gordhandas Govindram. The said contractor got the structural drawing and design of the upile cap" of the above ROB from his consultant Gandhi & Associate, Bhopal. As per decision of the Government, structural drawing and design bf the upile cqpw was entrusted to the NIT, Raipur for proof checking. The proof checking was done by the petitioner. During execution of the work, construction of an additional span became necessary due to increase in length of bridge. The design of apile cap" was again sent for proof checking. On rechecking, the drawing and design of the upile cap" was found to be unsafe. Since the earlier poof checking done by the petitioner was found to be unsafe on re-examination, respondent No. 2 vide his letter dated 12.5.2008 of Annexure P/l requested the Director, NIT, Raipur to take extra precaution in the matters of proof checking, to seek explanation from the petitioner, and to issue necessary directions to all concerned. Later on, Superintending Engineer, PWD, Bridge Construction Circle, vide its memo dated 15.10.2008, requested the Director, NIT, Raipur not to entrust the petitioner the task of proof checking of the drawings and designs sent by his office. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, has filed the instant petition for the following substantial reliefs: ua) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the impugned orders dated 12.5.2008, 3.10.2008 and 15.10.2008 marked as ANNEXURE P-1. b) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the petitioner is competent, qualify and entitled to do the proof checking of the designs and drawings when ever entrusted to his departments or colleges" Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have held the petitioner responsible for issuing the proof checking certificate of drawing and design of the pile cap without conducting any enquiry or investigation. The work is entrusted to the institution, who has been appointed Proof Consultant as per orders of the Government. Respondents No. 3 & 4 could not have issued such directions to the institution/proof consultant and the same is without jurisdiction and without any authority of law. The Director, NIT, Raipur without any consultation with the Head of the Department of Civil Engineering, has directed the Head of the Civil Engineering Department to act in accordance with the request of the Superintending Engineer. The action of the respondent authorities has immensely damaged the reputation of the petitioner amongst his friends, colleagues, peers and students, and the same has also occasioned financial loss to him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission. From the averments in the petition, it appears that as per decision of the State Govt. (Annexure P/2), the petitioner's institution NIT was selected as Proof Consultant by PWD. The drawings and designs of major bridges, buildings etc, were forwarded for proof checking to Institute. The proof checking is done by the institution on payment of prescribed fee. Drawing and design of the upile capn for under construction ROB at Uslapur was sent for proof checking to the institution.. The petitioner checked the drawing and design of the upile cap" and certified the same. Drawing and design of the upile cap" was again sent for proof checking to two renowned consultants. According to the report of the renowned consultants, the drawing and design of the ttpile cap" is unsafe. In these circumstances, respondent No.2, not satisfied with the services of the petitioner as consultant engineer, requested the institution not to entrust further proof checking work to the petitioner. It is settled law that the administrative rules, regulations and instructions, which have no statutory force, do not give rise to any legal right in favour of the aggrieved party and cannot be enforced in a court of law against the administration. The executive orders appropriately so-called do not confer any legally enforceable rights on any persons and impose no legal obligation on the subordinate authorities for whose guidance they are issued. Such an order would confer no legal and enforceable rights on the party concerned even if any of the directions is ignored. Their breach may expose the subordinate authorities. to disciplinary or other appropriate action, but they cannot be said to be in the nature of statutory rules having the force of law, subject to the jurisdiction of certiorari. ^] 4 Further, it is well settled that the Central Government or the State Government can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain circumstances; but that will not make such instructions statutory rules which are justiciable in certain circumstances. In order that such executive instructions have the force of statutory rules, it must be shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Central Government or the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution providing therefor. Therefore, even if there has been any breach of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Government by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Coniniercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others Versus G. Ratnam and others1. In the instant case, there is no binding agreement between the institution of the petitioner and the State Govt.. The work of proof checking was entrusted to the institution on payment of prescribed fee, as per executive instructions of the State Govt. The authorities, not satisfied with the services rendered by the petitioner, have requested the Head of the Institution not to get the work of proof checking through the petitioner. In the absence of any statutory right, much less any constitutional right, to do the work of proof checking entrusted to the institution by the respondent authorities, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs, which he has claimed in this petition and the petition is not maintainable. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the instant petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Khan (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 212