Judgment :- The defendant-Madurai City Municipal Corporation is the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are simple. The plaintiff is the Secretary of the Mid-day Meals for two schools viz., Raja Dhanalakshmi Middle School and L.V.Baluswami Iyer Middle School, Madurai. The two schools were providing mid-day meals to a total pupils for 200 days in a year. Towards the expenses the Government was contributing rate of 6 Paise per pupil till 30.9.1974 and the balance expenses were met with the donations. Later the Government passed Government Order No.1804 dated 21.10.1974 per which the Government would contribute 10 Paise per pupil and the local body defendant-Madurai City Municipal Corporation shall contribute a minimum of 5 Paise 1.10.1974 and thenceforth there shall be no public contribution. Accordingly the Government was making its contribution from 1.10.1974 but the defendant Corporation failed to any contribution. On account of this failure of the defendants the plaintiff was obliged borrow amounts to meet the expenditure. The plaintiff has also been sending regularly the defendant quarterly accounts stating the expenses of mid-day meal feeding 1.10.1974. The plaintiff also sent several notices demanding payment at the rate of 5 per pupil but all in vain. The plaintiff finally sent a registered notice on 7.3.1977 through lawyer which also had no effect. There is due from the defendant a sum of Rs.14,256 for period from 1.10.1974 to 30.9.1977. Therefore the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant contending that the suit is not maintainable since there is no privity of contract between the parties nor is there any statutory obligation on the part of the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount demanded. The Government order relied on by the plaintiff does not give cause of action for the suit. In any event of the suit claim is barred by limitation. To a clarification sought for from the Government whether the defendant-Municipal Corporation and other Municipalities which have their mid-day meals scheme for the pupils in the Municipal Schools have also to pay contribution as per the Government Order to non-Municipal Non-aided elementary schools, Government has not given any final clarification. Instead the Government issued Memorandum No.5083/12/75, dated 17.5.1977 stating that pending issue of final orders the Government on the point raised, such of those local bodies as are paying contribution during any period after 21.10.1974 should not discontinue the contribution. Instead the Government issued Memorandum No.5083/12/75, dated 17.5.1977 stating that pending issue of final orders the Government on the point raised, such of those local bodies as are paying contribution during any period after 21.10.1974 should not discontinue the contribution. As memorandum, since the defendant - local body has not made contribution at any time 21.10.1974 it need not make the contributions till final order is passed by the Government. For all these reasons the defendant is not liable to make contributions and hence the is not entitled to the suit amount. 4. On these pleadings the trial Court on consideration of the evidence adduced held plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount and that no part of the claim is barred limitation. Therefore it passed a decree as prayed for. Hence the appeal by the defendant corporation. 5. Mr.M.Chinnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant Corporation argues that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant there any statutory rule which obliges the defendant to make contribution Government order relied by the plaintiff is only an Executive Order without any sanction and therefore the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the suit for recovery the contribution directed to be paid under the Government order, and therefore the passed is erroneous. Carefully considering the matter it appears to me that there force in this contention. Certainly there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff defendant under which the defendant is liable to make contribution and this position fact concerned by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff. 6. Mr.K.N.Thambi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff would contend that under the Government Order (Ex.A-1) the Government has ordered defendant Municipal Corporation to made contribution for the mid-day meal scheme order shows that such contribution is compulsory, and the defendant having failed the contribution on account of which the plaintiff had to borrow amounts for expenses the mid-day meals, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount which the defendant to pay. 7. The concerned Government order is undisputa-bly not a statutory rule or order. shown that under any statutory provision this order was passed. This being the case order is merely passed by the Government under its executive power. 7. The concerned Government order is undisputa-bly not a statutory rule or order. shown that under any statutory provision this order was passed. This being the case order is merely passed by the Government under its executive power. As between Government and the defendant-local body the defendant must obey the order and if to obey, the Government will take appropriate steps against it. 8. The question is, whether the Government Order gives right to the defendant recover the amount in case it fails to make contribution; in other words whether payment by the defendant gives cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit. In my Government order does not clothe the plaintiff with any such right. If the contribution made it may be open to the plaintiff to complain to the Government and see defendant obeys the Government order. But the plaintiff cannot institute legal proceedings against the defendant for recovery of the contribution. 9. In support of his contention Mr.C.Chinnaswamy has relied on a Supreme Court decision Kumari Regina v. St.Aloysius Higher Elementary School and another, A.I.R. 1971 1921:1971 Crl.L.J. 1411. In that case the plaintiff who was a Headmistress in the school was served with certain charges against her and on being unsatisfied explanation given by her the management of the school passed an order reducing her position of Assistant Teacher. She filed an appeal against the management before the Educational Officer and having failed in that appeal she made further appeal to the Inspector of Schools and in that she succeeded and the Divisional Inspector directed management to restore her to her original position as Headmistress. The management declined to do so and therefore she filed a suit for directing the management to the order passed by the Divisional Inspector. The suit was based on the rules framed the Madras Elementary Education Act 8 of 1920. The school defended the suit contending that the order reducing the position of the plaintiff to that of an Assistant Teacher internal affair of the school management and there is nothing in the Act or Rules warrants interference with that right and therefore it gives no right to the plaintiff to in any court of law the order passed by the Divisional Inspector that order being matter between the education Department and the management. It was found Supreme Court that the Rules framed by the Government enabling the aggrieved teacher appeal to the Divisional Inspector was not framed under any provisions of the Act, this reason and for the reason that the rule was framed without complying with conditions prescribed under the Act, it held that the rule cannot be said to be a statutory and therefore the rule cannot be said to have effect of controlling the relationship the management of the school and its teachers. Therefore though the. Government withdraw for failure to comply with the rules the recognition and aid it has given school, since its rules governing recognition and aid were not complied with, the passed by the management reducing the position of the plaintiff would be valid aggrieved teacher will not have any remedy enforceable at law. The Supreme Court said to the effect that the rule not being statutory rule the appellant could not be have had a cause of action for enforcing the direction given by the Divisional Inspector restore her as the Headmistress in the appeal filed by her. 10. Reverting to the facts of our case, the relevant Government Order Ex. A-1 is administrative order and it does not give any right to the plaintiff that can be against the defendant in the Court of Law. According to the trial Court there is no clear taken by the defendant-Corporation that they are not bound by the Government order, find that it has clearly stated in the written statement that there is no statutory obligation the part of the defendant to pay the plaintiff any amount and the Government order by the plaintiff cannot furnish a cause of action for the suit. 11. Therefore, I find the suit is not maintainable and as Such the judgment of the trial decreeing the suit cannot be sustained. In this view of the matter the appeal is allowed the judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and the suit is dismissed, but circumstances no costs. B.S. ------ Appeal allowed.