Administrative instructions for permit selection do not create enforceable rights or justify certiorari for misapplication.

Executive directions issued under section 43A(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for selecting stage carriage permit applicants were held to be administrative instructions, not statutory rules having the force of law. The scheme left substantial discretion with transport authorities, and the order was not shown to have been made and published as enforceable rules. Because the directions were only guidance, their alleged misconstruction or non-observance did not amount to an error of law justifying certiorari under Article 226. The appeals therefore failed, and no writ lay on the ground of breach of the Government Order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the directions contained in the Government Order issued under section 43A(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were executive instructions or statutory rules having the force of law. (ii) Whether any alleged misconstruction or misapplication of those directions could justify the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the directions contained in the Government Order issued under section 43A(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were executive instructions or statutory rules having the force of law.

Analysis: The Order was issued to guide transport authorities in making selections for stage carriage permits and, on its language and scheme, left substantial discretion to the authorities. The provisions on screening of applicants, allocation of marks, and the power to ignore marks where the system worked unfairly showed that the directions were framed for administrative guidance rather than to create enforceable legal rights. The Order was also not shown to have been made and published as statutory rules. Its character was therefore that of executive or administrative instructions.

Conclusion: The directions were executive or administrative instructions and not statutory rules having the force of law.

Issue (ii): Whether any alleged misconstruction or misapplication of those directions could justify the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Once the directions were held to be executive in character, their breach or erroneous application did not amount to an error of law reviewable by certiorari. Executive instructions may guide subordinate authorities, but non-observance of such instructions does not confer a legal right to challenge the decision by writ. The alleged misreading of the Government Order therefore could not support judicial intervention under Article 226.

Conclusion: No writ of certiorari lay on the ground of alleged breach or misconstruction of the Government Order.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the Government Order was only administrative guidance and its alleged misapplication did not furnish a basis for certiorari.

Ratio Decidendi: Executive instructions issued for administrative guidance, and not as statutory rules with the force of law, do not create enforceable rights, and their breach or misconstruction does not by itself justify certiorari.

---