JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - In view of the conflicting decisions of this Court a Division Bench of this Court formulated one question of law and the papers were placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the said question has been referred to this Full Bench. The question was :- "Whether a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order can be issued by the High Court for enforcement of a request addressed by a superior officer to a subordinate officer." The facts leading to this reference are that the petitioner to the writ petition who was posted at Government Hospital, Shohratgarh, Basti under the Administrative Control of Chief Medical Officer, Basti was transferred under his order to Primary Health Centre, Mohan Kala, Basti which was a local transfer. On the representation of the wife of the petitioner to the Health Minister through the Chairman, U. P. Export Corporation Ltd. who forwarded the same to the Minister with his recommendatory letter, the Minister gave certain directions to the Additional Director, Gorakhpur to take steps for cancellation of transfer order. The Additional Director, Gorakhpur vide letter dated 27-5-1989 asked the Chief Medical Officer (hereinafter referred to as the C. M. O.) to cancel the transfer order. In the meantime district Basti was bifurcated and a new district Siddharth Nagar was carved out and Sohratgardh fell in district Siddharth Nagar. Copy of said letter was also endorsed to the C. M. O., Siddharth Nagar inviting his attention to the Additional Director') letter and requested him to deal with the matter at his level as the petitioner was posted under him. 2. On the representation of the petitioner, the C. M. O., Siddharth Nagar required him to take charge at the transferred place. Again the petitioner's wife made a representation to the Director General, Medical, Health and Family Welfare (for short D. G.) mentioning therein that the petitioner is to retire within a period of two years. On 15-7-1989 a letter issued from the office of the D. G. addressed to C. M.O. Siddharth Nagar in which the latter was required to ensure compliance of orders dated 11-5-1989 and 27-5-1989 of the Minister and the Additional Director respectively. On 15-7-1989 a letter issued from the office of the D. G. addressed to C. M.O. Siddharth Nagar in which the latter was required to ensure compliance of orders dated 11-5-1989 and 27-5-1989 of the Minister and the Additional Director respectively. The C. M. O. did not cancel the transfer order and asked him to join at the transferred place as a condition where after his letters will be considered and compliance report may be sent. The transfer order was implemented. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was laced on two decisions of this court, one decided on the date it was presented and another after hearing learned counsel for the parties The first case Dr. Bipin Behari Dube v. Additional Director was decided on 12-8-1987 and another Ram Gopal Gupta v. Additional Director was decided on 12-1-1987. In Ram Gopal's case the Division Bench has justified the court's interference by stating that if the subordinate officer flouts the orders of the Superior Officer, it would lead to administrative anarchy. In the first case it was held that the Additional Director was bound to carry out directions. In the latter case it was held that the Additional Director is bound by the orders of the superior authority and he shall obey the order of the Minister as communicated to him by the Director. He shall not act upon the order of transfer passed earlier. While in the first case it was also held that so long as the order dated 9-9-1986 passed by Joint Director has not been varied, revoked or rescinded, the Additional Director is bound by the order of the superior officer. It will lead to administrative anarchy if the orders passed by the superior authorities are flouted by the subordinate authorities. The Division Bench expressed the view that if the superior officer himself is satisfied and does not care for implementation and is not serious about it, the implementation can be brought about by taking disciplinary action against the erring officer and the courts hardly have the means to fathom the reasons for the superior officer's disinclination to enforce compliance of his own order. If the superior officer himself is not willing to get his order enforced, then the High Court should not interfere with the same. If the superior officer himself is not willing to get his order enforced, then the High Court should not interfere with the same. No writ of mandamus can be issued for enforcement of departmental manuals or instructions not having any statutory force, or concession. Such departmental manual or instructions do not create any legal right in favour of the petitioner. 3. In the instant case it was contended on behalf of the State that the letter in question was in the nature of request and at best it was in the nature of departmental instructions. Reference was made to the case of Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director and others 1981 (2) SCC 72 , wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if that be so, the authorities will look into the matter and redress the grievance of the appellant. The Government in exercise of executive powers has issued certain instructions or directions in the matter of transfers laying down certain guidelines which enjoins upon the officers to follow and the instructions which have been placed before us, there appears to be no categorical direction of the State Government in this behalf. The use of word 'ordinarily' in the Government Orders permit deviation or departure from the guidelines in exceptional cases. In the case of B. Vardha Rao v. State of Karnataka, 1986 (4) SCC 131 , the Court held that the transfer of Government servant app Anted to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and executive directions laying down certain guidelines in the matter of transfer are merely directory and not mandatory. 4. In the instant case, even if it is accepted that the letter by superior authority that in Additional Director in view of direction of the Minister to the subordinate officer in the matter of transfer of the petitioner which has been contended to be in the nature of request spells out direction to act inasmuch as superior authority has asked the subordinate authority to report compliance. At district level transfer orders are passed by the District Officer. But in the State of U. P., the transfer of class III employees can also be made out of district by the State Government and the Regional Head is competent to transfer any class three employee in the region. At district level transfer orders are passed by the District Officer. But in the State of U. P., the transfer of class III employees can also be made out of district by the State Government and the Regional Head is competent to transfer any class three employee in the region. The orders issued by the Government in exercise of its executive powers are clear and specific. The executive instructions on which reliance has been placed also contain it. 5. Under the Constitution of India, the President and the Government are Constitutional heads while the administration of the State is run by the Council of Ministers. Under Article 77 of the Constitution of India all executive actions are to be expressed or to be taken in the name of the President and so far as the States are concerned, Article 163 of the Constitution of India provides that the Council of Ministers will aid and advice the Governor. Article 154 of the Constitution provides that all executive powers of the State shall be vested with the Governor and they shall be exercised by the Council of Minister subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution. The Council of Ministers cannot deal with each and every matter which comes before the Government and it seems that is why Article 166 of the Constitution of India authorises the President and the Governor to make rules for more convenient transaction of the Business of the Government of India or the Government of States by allocation among his Ministers of the said business as has been observed in the case of A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. State of Madras, (1970) SC 1102 The Court was of the view that it is a fundamental principle of English Constitutional law that Ministers must accept responsibility for every executive act. In England, the Sovereign never acts on his own responsibility and the same things stands incorporation in the Indian Constitution. The power of the sovereign is conditioned by the practical rule that the Crown must find advisers to bear responsibility for his action as has been observed in the case of Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955) SC 549. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the executive has the primary responsibility for the formulation of Governmental policy and its transmission into law. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the executive has the primary responsibility for the formulation of Governmental policy and its transmission into law. The condition precedent to the exercise of this responsibility is that the executive retains the confidence of the legislative branch of the State. The initiation of legislation, the maintenance of order, the promotion of social and economic welfare, the direction of foreign policy, the carrying on the general administration of the State are all executive functions. The executive is to act subject to control of the Legislature. The executive power of the Union is vested in the President. The President is the formal or constitutional head of the executive. The real executive powers are vested in the Ministry with the Prime Minister as the head to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions. The same is the position with the Ministers in the states and the real executive power in the States are also vested in the Ministers with the Chief Minister to aid and advise the Governor in his functions. In India also an individual Minister is responsible for every action taken in his Ministry. In every administration, decisions are taken by the civil servants. The Ministry lays down the policies. The Council of Ministers settle the major policies. When a Civil Servant takes a decision, he does not do it as a delegate of his Minister. He does it on behalf of the Government. The officers are limbs of the Government and not its delegates. Where functions are entrusted to a Minister and these are performed by an official employed in the Ministry's department, there is in law no delegation because constitutionally the act or decision of the official is that of the Minister as was observed in the case of Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, 1974 SC 2192. It is always open to the Minister to call for any file in his Ministry and pass orders and issue directions to his department regarding disposal of Government business, may it be in relation to general or specific. The Minister has got powers to make Standing Orders regarding disposal of cases in his department under the rules of business if they do so provide. 6. The Minister has got powers to make Standing Orders regarding disposal of cases in his department under the rules of business if they do so provide. 6. Normally all executive actions in the State are taken in the name of the Governor but every executive decision is not required to be expressed formally particularly in a case when superior officer directs a subordinate to act in a particular way. In this view if a direction is given by a Minister, it will be an executive action of the Minister. The direction issued by the Minister in respect of conduct of Government business or in respect of transfer will be a direction or order by the State Government. If in exercise of executive powers, the Minister issues a particular direction, the subordinates are duty-bound to obey it. If a direction is issued to a subordinate to convey it to his subordinates in fact who is to act. the subordinate will be duty bound to act in a country governed by rule of law. The State Government has got powers to transfer Class III employees out of district. In a democratic country where rule of law prevails, the work of the Government is carried on through civil servants having a hierarchy. The hierarchy is also bound by norms and discipline and violation of directions of the superiors will amount to insubordination and misconduct. No Government can function in case indiscipline and insubordination are given up because it will lead to anarchy and disaster to the entire and democratic structure and the rule of law. 7. It can hardly be disputed that a Government servant has sufficient interest in the matter of transfer from one place to another during service tenure which may not even result in dislocation of his family life but may have certain social and financial problems and may adversely affect him and his family in various ways Regarding transfers the State Government has laid down executive instructions and though the same may be directory in nature but as far as possible these directions are to be complied with but if a transfer order is passed, it is an incident of service and no interference is call for with the same. But if the transfer order is not passed in public interest and is passed in colourable exercise of powers, it is open to challenge being wholly illegal and a mandamus at the interest of Government servant can be issued as has been observed in the case of B. Vardha Rao, (supra). 8. The question for consideration is that when the Head of Department or the Minister directs subordinate authority and asks for compliance report, whether mandamus can be issued for compliance with the said order. 9. Mandamus is in the form of a command to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specified, which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty The object is to remedy defects of justice and in all cases where there is a specific legal right and no specific legal remedy for enforcing that right. Mandamus may issue where although there is an appropriate remedy yet the redress is not convenient, beneficial and effectual. 10. In Attorney General v. St. Inses. B. D. C., (1961) 1 QB 366) it was observed that on successful assertion that a public duty has not been complied with, declaration of invalidity will issue. For issuing a mandamus a person must establish legal right only then mandamus can be issued. A mandamus will not lie against departmental instructions having no statutory force as the same do not give any legal right in favour of the person praying for protection of the same. In the case of J.R. Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1681 it was held that mandamus cannot be issued to enforce purely administrative instructions, but in the said case the court laid foundation for issuance of writ of mandamus in discretionary matters in suitable cases. The court observed :- "The decision of the House of Lords in Padfiled's case marks the emergence of the interventionist judicial attitude that has characterised many recent judgments. In view of the recent decision of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions, it would be premature to conclude that in no circumstance would be courts prepared to apply to the exercise by the Crown of some non-statutory powers the same criterion for review as would be applicable, were the discretion conferred by statute. In view of the recent decision of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions, it would be premature to conclude that in no circumstance would be courts prepared to apply to the exercise by the Crown of some non-statutory powers the same criterion for review as would be applicable, were the discretion conferred by statute. In the ultimate analysis, the present trend of judicial opinion in England on the question as to whether a 'prerogative' power is reviewable or not depends on whether its subject-matter is suitable for judicial control." In Audi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Surarna Jayanti Mahoistn Smarak Trust and others v. R. V. Rudani and others, (1989) SCC 691 : (1989) 2 UPLBEC 117 (SC) the Court observed :- ".... Mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the Statute. Commenting on the development of this Law, Professor De Smith states : To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract. We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. 'Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226.... " The position which thus emerges out is that a mandamus can be issued in the matters of public duty which have not only been imposed by statute but by H common law, custom and even contract. In the case of Union of India v. K. P. Joseph, AIR 1973 SC 303 , it was held that a mandamus can be issued to enforce right arising out of administrative directions. In the case of Union of India v. K. P. Joseph, AIR 1973 SC 303 , it was held that a mandamus can be issued to enforce right arising out of administrative directions. Likewise in the case of D. F.O., South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi Singh, AIR 1973 SC 205 it was observed that a mandamus can also be issued against a private individual in case there is collusion between private individual and a public officer which affects right of a third persons as was held in the case of Sohanlal v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 529 that the right of mandamus is only granted to compel performance of duties. 11. In Qamruddin v. Rasul Baksh, 1989 (7) Lucknow Civil Decision 534, which case arose out of a suit for injunction, it was held that mandamus cannot be issued to private individual unless he is under statutory duty. There appears to be no reason why at the instance of an affected and interested person, writ cannot be issued against an individual as public officer performing public duty who can be guided and directed to act in a particular way by a superior public officer. If orders passed by a public officer in the matter of transfer of an employee if not cancelled, can be varied or substituted by some other order passed by Superior Authority or Government itself in exercise of its powers there appears to be no reason why action for non-compliance of the same cannot he taken against the officer concerned. If a Minister requires cancellation of a particular order, which order is not (sic) sacrosanct and can be cancelled or varied in some manner, the subordinate officer is bound to obey or carry out the same. If the Minister or Department has no power to get the order enforced, obviously it would not be possible for them to take action against the officer for insubordination. If the Minister or Department has no power to get the order enforced, obviously it would not be possible for them to take action against the officer for insubordination. Even if action for insubordination can be taken against the officer for non compliance with the order so passed, but the order passed or direction given by the Superior Authority would even then remain ineffective and can only be ridiculed having serious repercussion on the functioning of the Government We are accordingly of the view that a mandamus can be issued to a private individual as public officer performing public duty and subordinate to some higher authority for enforcing the request of superior officer which is in the nature of direction and will be in the nature of an administrative order. 12. However, so far as this writ petition is concerned, in view of the fact that the petitioner has joined at the transferred place, no relief can be granted as more or less the petition has become infructuous, but in view of the fact that we were required to answer the question, we have answered it. D.K. Trivedi, J. - I agree with the conclusion arrived at in the judgment passed by brother U. C. Srivastava, J. However, by this judgment. I am giving some more reasons in support of the same. 14. Learned Chief Standing Counsel states that the petitioner has already been transferred to Varanasi and, therefore, the present writ petition becomes infructuous and no question now arises to implement the orders passed by the superior officers. There is no denial of this fact from the side of the petitioner but as the question is referred to the Full Bench and we have decided to answer the question, therefore, we are deciding the question in the light of facts of the case. 15. Before dealing with the case I may point out that the question referred to the Full Bench does not arise in the instant case. 15. Before dealing with the case I may point out that the question referred to the Full Bench does not arise in the instant case. The question referred to this Full Bench is "Whether a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order can be issued by the High Court for enforcement of a request addressed by a superior officer to his subordinate officer?" According to the question referred to the Full Bench if some request has been made by a superior officer to his junior officer to do some thing then in those circumstances whether it is obligatory on the subordinate officer to accept the said request or not. The request means to ask for a favour and nothing else, therefore, request in my opinion creates no interest or right in favour of any person and, therefore, it cannot be enforced. In view of the facts stated above there will be no dispute that the Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction compelling that officer to accept the request of higher authorities. 16. The position would be different in case of an order or specific direction to do something. The order means an authoritative direction by the higher authority to a subordinate officer to do the work. The order or specific direction means something imposed as authoritative instruction and, therefore, the same has a binding effect on the subordinate officer and these orders and authoritative directions further, if create some interest in favour of a third person, then in opinion a writ can be issued for implementation of the said orders. As the Division Bench has referred the writ petition as a whole, therefore, we have to look into the facts of the case. 17. From the perusal of the facts it is clear that specific orders and directions have been issued by the superior officer to a subordinate officer to cancel the order passed by him. The higher authority after considering the correctness of the order passed by the subordinate officer can either cancel the order himself or can give specific directions through an order to the subordinate officer who passed the said order to cancel the said order. The higher authority after considering the correctness of the order passed by the subordinate officer can either cancel the order himself or can give specific directions through an order to the subordinate officer who passed the said order to cancel the said order. In my opinion, there will be no distinction if the higher authority himself cancels the order or directs the subordinate officer who passed the impugned order to cancel the same. In the instant case it is not disputed that the order of transfer was passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Basti, and on the representation of the petitioner the Minister gave directions to the Additional Director of Medical and Health Services to take steps for cancellation of the said order. However, it is not disputed that the Additional Director, Medical and Health Services, passed a specific order on 27-5-1989 contained in Annexure 3 directing the Chief Medical Officer, Basti to cancel the order passed by him. It is also not disputed that the Additional Director is a superior and competent officer and he can cancel the order passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Basti. The contention of the Chief Standing Counsel is that as the transfer order passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Basti, has not been cancelled by the Additional Director, Medical and Health Services, therefore, the order of the Additional Director is nothing except a request. From the perusal of the order passed by the Additional Director it appears that the Additional Director has given a clear cut direction to the Chief Medical Officer, Basti, to cancel the said order and, therefore, in my opinion the order passed by the Additional Director cannot be said to be a mere request. The Director of Medical and Health Services by his letter dated 15-7-1989 contained in Annexure 8 further directed the Chief Medical Officer, Basti, to implement the order passed by the Additional Director as well as the Minister. In spite of these specific orders the Chief Medical Officer, Basti, refused to implement the order passed by the higher authorities. The Director of Medical and Health Services by his letter dated 15-7-1989 contained in Annexure 8 further directed the Chief Medical Officer, Basti, to implement the order passed by the Additional Director as well as the Minister. In spite of these specific orders the Chief Medical Officer, Basti, refused to implement the order passed by the higher authorities. In the meantime as the petitioner's place of posting came within the jurisdiction of the Chief Medical officer, Siddhauh Nagar, therefore, the Chief Medical Officer, Basti by his order dated 1/3-6-1989 contained in Annexure 4 shifted the liability of the cancellation of the order on the Chief Medical, officer, Siddharth Nagar, who by letter dated 16-6-1989 contained in Annexure 6, informed the petitioner that he may join the place of his new posting and the question of his representation and request shall be considered later on. The Court has no concern whether the higher authority will take any disciplinary action against the subordinate officer or not. The Court will also not interfere in the dispute between the higher authorities and the subordinate officer but if the order passed by the higher authority creates some interest or right in favour of a third person then on the request of that third person in my opinion the Court can direct the officer to implement the orders of higher authorities. On the other hand, if we accept the contention of the learned Chief Standing Counsel that the order of the superior officer cannot be implemented even on the request of a third person then the question will arise as to what will be the remedy of the third person in these circumstances. If he acts is accordance with the order of the superior officer then the subordinate officer, who is his immediate boss, is ready to take action against him. He cannot make any representation to superior officer because even if orders have been passed by the superior officers the same cannot be implemented. The result would be that there would be administrative discipline and the said indiscipline will lead to administrative anarchy. 18. No doubt the superior authority can take disciplinary action against the subordinate officer but how the third person, in whose favour right and interest have been created, can protect his right during this period. The result would be that there would be administrative discipline and the said indiscipline will lead to administrative anarchy. 18. No doubt the superior authority can take disciplinary action against the subordinate officer but how the third person, in whose favour right and interest have been created, can protect his right during this period. The State is bound for its action and if the Court has a right to scrutinise its actions and reasons within its authority then why not the Court can compel the State officers to follow the orders passed by higher authorities. There will be no dispute on this question that the orders of the higher authorities always have a binding effect on the subordinate authorities. The dispute is only whether the Court can compel a subordinate officer for implementation of an order of a superior officer where interest of a third person is involved. Though mandamus will not lie where duty is clearly discretionary and where party upon who n the rests, has exercised the discretion reasonably within his jurisdiction, but duty where the discretion is abused so as to work injustice, in my option, then it can be controlled by a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus in my opinion may be issued to prevent abuse of discretion or transgression of the limit of the discretion or exercise of power in bad faith. 19. The contention of the learned Chief Standing Counsel is that a writ of mandamus can be issued only in case where there is statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is failure on the part of that officer to discharge that statutory obligation. In support of his contention he relied upon the case of Lekhroj v. Deputy Custodian, Bombay reported in AIR 1966 SC 334 and Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division, reported in AIR 1958 SC 358 Learned Chief Standing Counsel further placed before us the case of R. Abdullah Pawather v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, reported in AIR 1959 SC 896 in which it was held that if the Government Orders contain merely executive or administrative directions their breach would not justify the issue of writ by the High Court. The learned Chief Standing Counsel further argued that the State can give administrative instructions to its servants how to act in certain conditions but that will not make such instructions statutory rules and for this he relied upon the case of G. J. Fernandy v. State of Mysore, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1753 . There is no doubt that administrative instructions have neither the statutory force nor can they be enforced through a writ petition. It is also not disputed that the instructions given by the State to its officers how to act in certain conditions are not enforceable. But the petition would be different if such executive orders create some interest and right in favour of third person and the third person moved a writ petition for protection and implementation of such rights. In the case of Union of India v. M/s, Indo-Afghan Agency, AIR 1968 SC 718 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :- "But the respondents are not seeking to enforce any contractual right : they are seeking to enforce compliance with the obligation which is laid upon the Textile Commissioner by the terms of the Scheme, and we are of the view that even if the Scheme is executive in character, the respondents who were aggrieved because of the failure to carry out the terms of the Scheme were entitled to seek resort to the Court and claim that the obligation imposed upon the Textile Commissioner by the Scheme be ordered to be carried out." This shows that even the obligation is enforceable and the Court has jurisdiction to enforce the obligation of the Government made under the Scheme. Again in the case of Union of India v. K. P. Joseph and others, reported in AIR 1973 SC 303 relying on the case of Indo-Afghan Agency, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :- "To say that an administrative order can never confer any right would be too wide a proposition. There are administrative orders which confer rights and impose duties. Again in the case of Union of India v. K. P. Joseph and others, reported in AIR 1973 SC 303 relying on the case of Indo-Afghan Agency, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :- "To say that an administrative order can never confer any right would be too wide a proposition. There are administrative orders which confer rights and impose duties. It is because an administrative order can abridge or take away rights that Courts have imported the principle of natural justice of audi alteram partem into this area." In this case there was an office memorandum which provided certain benefits to the employees and the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued a writ for implementation of such office memo as the said memo created a right in favour of the respondent. In view of these citations it is now settled that administrative orders can also be enforced by the Court if the said orders confer upon a person any right or interest. 20. It cannot be disputed that the whole set up of democratic system is based on the principle of rule of law. It is the duty of the State who act through their officers to maintain the rule of law and for maintaining the rule of law they have to act in accordance with certain norms and discipline. The basic principle of administrative law and discipline is that the subordinate officer must comply with the orders passed by the superior officers. If subordinate officers started flouting orders of the superior officers then the whole system of administrative discipline would collapse which leads to disorder and the result would be that the entire structure of administration as the rule of law will fall down. No doubt the superior officers in those circumstances can take disciplinary action against the subordinate officers as well as implement their orders by getting another person posted in his place but this remedy cannot be said to be efficacious as will not protect the interest of a third person. The third person remains in the midst as to whether he should obey the orders passed by the superior officer or implement the orders passed by the subordinate officer. The third person remains in the midst as to whether he should obey the orders passed by the superior officer or implement the orders passed by the subordinate officer. In these circumstances a third person in my opinion can come to Court and pray for suitable directions in order to clarify his position as well as in order to save himself from unnecessary harassment or any other disciplinary action. 21. If subordinate officers started flouting orders of superior officers then there will be no rule of law and in these circumstances in order to maintain the rule of law the Court can issue a writ or direction to the officers concerned to give effect to the orders passed by the superior officers in order to maintain administrative discipline which is the basic structure of rule of law. A writ of mandamus is generally issued to an administrative authority, State or any of its officers to compel him to do his duty in accordance with law or the norms. 22. A writ of mandamus can issue even with respect to administrative acts. The only requirement being that there should exist a duty in the person whom a writ is addressed to perform a duty, therefore, in my opinion High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a responsible officer who is alleged to be duty bound to execute the order passed by the superior officer. If the subordinate officer refuses to obey the order of the superior officer then in these circumstances the Court will pull up the subordinate officer and compel him to obey the mandate which the superior officer had issued. The Bench while referring the case to the Full Bench after disagreeing with the earlier Bench case, namely, the case of Ram Gopal, observed : "On the administrative side a large number of directions are issued from time to time. Some are meant to be followed immediately : some are meant to be followed with delay ; and yet others are not meant to be followed at all. Some are meant to be followed immediately : some are meant to be followed with delay ; and yet others are not meant to be followed at all. Should High Court step in to secure enforcement of all such orders or should it be left to the administrative authorities to decide which order they will seek obedience of and which they will not ?" In my opinion, this cannot be accepted because it will give a discretion to the subordinate officer to pick and choose the orders passed by the superior officer at the time of implementation of the said orders and this will lead to administrative anarchy. It cannot be presumed that specific orders passed by the superior officers are meant sometimes for implementation and sometimes for non-implementation. This further means that the subordinate officer has a right to decide as to which order is meant to be followed and which order is not meant to be followed. If the subordinate officer has been given a power to pick and choose without any guidelines then it will merely result in discrimination and arbitrariness which amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India In similar circumstances a Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. Nil of 1987, Dr Bipin Behari Dube v. Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare and another as well as in Writ Petition No. Nil of 1987, Ram Gopal Gupta v. Additional Director, took a view "It will lead to administrative anarchy if the orders passed by the superior authorities are flouted by the subordinate authorities." I fully agree with the view expressed by the Bench in the cases mentioned above. 23. In view of the above facts the reply to the question referred to the Full Bench as framed by the Bench is in my opinion as follows : "No writ or direction in the nature of mandamus can be issued for implementation of the request of a superior authority by the subordinate officer. However, as pointed out above, the position would be different in the case of an order of specific direction and in my opinion a mandamus or direction can be given to the officer concerned for giving effect to the order passed by the superior officer." 24. However, as pointed out above, the position would be different in the case of an order of specific direction and in my opinion a mandamus or direction can be given to the officer concerned for giving effect to the order passed by the superior officer." 24. As pointed out above in the beginning, the writ petition has already become infructuous and, therefore, in the instant writ petition there is no question of issue of any writ of mandamus. B.L. Loomba, J. - I have the advantage of going through the judgment of Hon'ble U. C. Srivastava, J, with which Hon'ble D. K. Trivedi, J. has agreed. I am sorry, however, that I am unable to subscribe to the view formed by my learned brothers. I give my views as under :- 26. The question of law referred to the Full Bench is whether a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction can be issued by the High Court for enforcement of a request addressed by a superior officer to a subordinate officer. True, that the request by a superior officer, in a way, is normally to be treated as direction but there are also cases when the superior officer on the basis of representation made to him refers the matter back to the subordinate officer requiring him to consider and accept the proposal contained in the letter of request/direction. 27. The transaction of the Government business has to be carried out in accordance with the rules of business and the orders as to the delegation of powers. 28. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner Tara Prasad Mishra, a Pharmacist, was transferred from Sohratgarh Primary Health Centre to Primary Health Centre, Mohan Kola in the same district, under orders of the C. M. O. dated 29-3-1989. It appears that a representation was filed against this transfer not by the petitioner but by his wife addressed to the Health Minister. This representation was recommended by Adhyaksh of U.P. Niryat Nigam and on the basis of this recommendation, the Health Minister passed orders directing necessary action to be taken for cancellation of the transfer. Subsequently, the Additional Director by his letter dated 27-5-1989 directed the C. M. O., Basti to cancel this transfer. This representation was recommended by Adhyaksh of U.P. Niryat Nigam and on the basis of this recommendation, the Health Minister passed orders directing necessary action to be taken for cancellation of the transfer. Subsequently, the Additional Director by his letter dated 27-5-1989 directed the C. M. O., Basti to cancel this transfer. Meanwhile, there was a bifurcation of District Basti and the Primary Health Centre concerned fell within newly created district known as Sidharth Nagar, C. M. O. of Basti wrote to C. M. O. Sidharth Nagar for taking necessary action relating to cancellation of this transfer. C. M. O., Sidharth Nagar passed order dated 2-6-1989 directing the petitioner to first join at the place of posting and that thereafter the matter will be considered. The wife of the petitioner again approached the Director, Medical and Health Services and another letter was sent by the Additional Director, Medical to C. M. O., Sidharth Nagar requiring the compliance of the Health Minister. 29. When the representation and the directions of the Additional Director failed to bring the desired result, the present writ petition was filed seeking mandamus against the C. M. O. requiring him to comply with the directions of the Additional Director, Medical. 30. The Division Bench in the order of reference has mentioned and respectfully speaking, rightly so, that the writ is issued for the enforcement of a legal duty and legal duty is one which is imposed by the statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law It was mentioned that it does not issue any writ for enforcement of departmental manuals or instructions not having any statutory force because such instructions do not create any legal right. 31. In the present case, this is the admitted position that C. M. O. is the authority competent to pass the orders of transfer. It could not be shown that the Director has been vested with any rights to set aside the orders of the C. M. O., No doubt, the Additional Director is a superior authority and normally speaking the C. M. O. will carry out the directions sent by the Additional Director. It could not be shown that the Director has been vested with any rights to set aside the orders of the C. M. O., No doubt, the Additional Director is a superior authority and normally speaking the C. M. O. will carry out the directions sent by the Additional Director. The fact, however, remains that the authority competent in law to pass the order of transfer or to cancel the same remains the C. M. O. This is further clear because neither the Minister Incharge nor the Additional Director has cancelled the order of transfer. Only thing done is to direct the C. M. O. to cancel the transfer order. This means that the authority competent to pass the orders of C. M. O. transferring the petitioner is a lawful order having been passed by the authority competent to do so. The direction of the Additional Director is in the nature of administrative direction not having force of law. 32. In this situation, it would not in my view, be expedient and justified to issue mandamus so as to enforce the orders of the Additional Director and interfere in the lawful orders of a competent authority. If the superior officer chooses to take further action in the matter, disciplinary action can be taken against the C. M. O. concerned. The C. M. O. is answerable for his conduct in not complying with the directions of the Additional Director and for that purpose of the Minister, but the fact remains that the order of the Additional Director is not one having force of law for the enforcement of which mandamus may be called for to be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner has no legal right, he cannot claim writ of mandamus. On the one hand, there is a question of so-called administrative anarchy resulting from non-compliance of directions of a superior authority by a subordinate authority but, on the other hand, there is also a question of discipline underlying the enforcement of a lawful order of transfer. The petitioner instead of complying with the lawful order of competent authority and instead of making any direct representation adopted the course of having the representation filed through his wife. This, it appears, was done to avoid action underlying Government directions that no political approach should be made in the matter of transfer. The petitioner instead of complying with the lawful order of competent authority and instead of making any direct representation adopted the course of having the representation filed through his wife. This, it appears, was done to avoid action underlying Government directions that no political approach should be made in the matter of transfer. The wife of the petitioner approached Adhyaksh of U. P. Niryat Nigam and obtained a recommendation which became the basis of the instructions of the Minister Incharge followed by directions of the Additional Director. 33. I think, in such matters in the absence of a legal right in favour of a petitioner, issue of a writ of mandamus may not be called for and such matters may be left to be resolved by the administrative authorities amongst themselves and we may answer the question that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued for enforcement of such request or direction. By the Court. - In accordance with the view of the majority the question referred to the larger Bench is answered as such :- "We are accordingly of the view that a mandamus can be issued to a private individual as public officer performing public duty and subordinate to some higher authority for enforcing the request of the superior officer which is in the nature of direction."