K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition or direction to the State Government and to the Accountant General in karnataka from releasing or paying or in any other manner providing any money or fund from the consolidated fund or conten- gent fund of Karnataka to respondents 3 to 14 to proceed and attend the Los Angeles olympics, 1984 as members of Government delegation. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a registered Society with an avowed object of protecting the interest of consumers. It has come forward with this petition on the ground that a citizen has a duty under Article 51a of the constitution to protect public properties. The money that is now ordered to be spent on the delegation consists of respondents 3 to 14 is from the public exchequer of the State and the respondents 3 to 14 not being sportsmen and not connected with sports is any manner in as such as the delegation consists of two Ministers, two officials and 8 members of the Legislative assembly, therefore it cannot be said that the public money is being spent properly. ( 3 ) WHETHER a delegation to Los Angeles olympics, 1984 has to be sent from the state of Karnataka and if so who shall consist of such a delegation and from what source the money has to be spent are the matters which wholly lie within the executive power of the Government. No doubt, judicial review of executive action is permissible, but there are well accepted exceptions to this. If an executive action is not governed by a statute or rule and if it does not affect a legal or constitutional right of a citizen or a person it will not be amenable to judicial review as the matter will lie wholly within the discretionary power of the Government. In the instant case also it is not possible to hold that the executive action of the State Government in sending the delegation to Los Angeles Olympics, 1984 affects or has affected a legal or constitutional right of a citizen or a person, nor it is opposed to any provision of law. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that such an action is amenable to judicial review. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that such an action is amenable to judicial review. ( 4 ) THE Fundamental Duties enumerated in Article 51a of the Constitution, are addressed to the citizen. He owes these duties to the State, the country and the nation. These duties are not made enforceable through a Court of law. No doubt, if the State makes a law to prohibit any act or conduct which is violative of any of the fundamental Duties and makes such an act or conduct penal, such a law would definitely make the Fundamental duties meaningful and such a law subject to it being valid, will be enforced by a Court of law. But, as the matter stands, the legal utility of the Fundamental Duties is not even similar to Directive Principles which are addressed to the State. There is no Article with reference to Fundamental Duties, similar to Article 31c of the Constitution, which elevates the status of Directive Principles to higher plane than providing a mere guide-line for the State Policy. By reason of Article 31c, no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV of the Constitution, shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by article 14 or 19, and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy. Whereas, in the absence of Article 31c in relation to Fundamental Duties, any law passed by the state for enforcing the Fundamental duties, will have to pass through the test of Part HI of the Constitution as well as the legislative competence. That being the position, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner is entitled to maintain the petition on the ground that there is a Fundamental Duty cast on him to safeguard public 'property. ( 5 ) THE petitioner may or may not be right in contending that the amount proposed to be spent on the delegation to Los angeles Olympics, 1984 consisting of respondents 3 to 14, is not justified. ( 5 ) THE petitioner may or may not be right in contending that the amount proposed to be spent on the delegation to Los angeles Olympics, 1984 consisting of respondents 3 to 14, is not justified. It is also possible that the first respondent may have valid reasons to justify such an expenditure; but, as long as it is not a matter which comes under Judicial Review, it is not necessary to call upon respondent No. 1 to disclose the reasons. This Court is not an appropriate forum for raising this issue in a petition under Article 226 of the. Constitution. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no ground to issue Rule. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, before parting with the case, it is necessary to place on record the submission of learned Advocate General that respondent No. 4 is not going along with the delegation as its members and he is going separately for medical check up on his own. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition is rejected. --- *** --- .