Court upholds private club's suspension power over members in writ appeals, citing lack of statutory basis.

The court dismissed the writ appeals, affirming the third respondent club's right to enforce the suspension orders against the appellants. It held that Circular No. 32 of 1975 was not enforceable as it lacked statutory force, and Article 28 of the third respondent's Articles of Association was valid. The court ruled that a writ of mandamus could not be used to enforce administrative instructions and that the internal discipline of a private club did not involve public law aspects or statutory violations. Consequently, the appellants' requests for a writ of mandamus were deemed not maintainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Enforceability of Circular No. 32 of 1975.
2. Validity of Article 28 of the Articles of Association of the third respondent.
3. Right of the appellants to seek a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Enforceability of Circular No. 32 of 1975:
The appellants sought to enforce Circular No. 32 of 1975, issued by the first respondent, which they claimed invalidated Article 28 of the third respondent's Articles of Association. The court noted that the circular was merely an administrative instruction and not a statutory order. It represented the department's view on the expulsion of a shareholder in a public limited company and did not have the force of law. Therefore, it could not confer any enforceable rights on third parties like the appellants. The court cited Durga Das Basu's Administrative Law, emphasizing that administrative instructions without statutory force are not enforceable in a court of law. Consequently, the appellants could not seek a writ of mandamus to enforce the circular.

2. Validity of Article 28 of the Articles of Association of the third respondent:
Article 28 allowed the committee of the third respondent to suspend members for conduct deemed injurious to the club's prestige and interest. The appellants argued that this article contravened the Companies Act and should be deleted. However, the court found that the amendment to Article 28 had been duly approved by the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Madras, in 1974, before the issuance of Circular No. 32 of 1975. The court held that the provisions of the third respondent's Articles of Association were legal and not void ab initio. The suspension of the appellants was deemed valid, legal, and proper, as it pertained to the internal administration of the club.

3. Right of the appellants to seek a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The appellants filed writ petitions seeking a mandamus to enforce Circular No. 32 of 1975 and delete Article 28. The court ruled that a writ of mandamus does not lie to enforce administrative instructions, which lack statutory force. Since the circular was not a statutory order, it could not be enforced through a writ petition under Article 226. The court further noted that the issue involved the internal discipline of a private club, which did not raise any public law aspect or violation of statutory or fundamental rights. Therefore, the appellants had no legal right against the respondents, and the respondents had no legal duty to enforce the circular. The court concluded that the appellants had misconceived their remedies in law.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeals, affirming that the third respondent club could enforce the suspension orders against the appellants. The court held that the appellants had no enforceable rights under Circular No. 32 of 1975 and that Article 28 of the third respondent's Articles of Association was valid and legally binding. The appellants' request for a writ of mandamus was deemed not maintainable.

---