ORDER In this Civil Rule, the petitioners have challenged the decision of the Respondent no. 7 to allot shop rooms in newly constructed shopping complexes of the Municipal Board, Port Blair in terms of the resolutions adopted by the respondent no.7 at its meetings on 26th and on 30th July, 1991 (Annexure 'I' series) and also the inaction of the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioners by providing shop rooms in the newly constructed market complexes of the Municipal Board, Port Blair. 2. Bereft of all details, the facts of the case inter alia, are that admittedly, the petitioners' shop rooms were gutted by fire that had taken place in Aberdeen Village near Netaji Club, Port Blair on the night intervening 6th/7th January, 1988. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, who is at the top of the overall administration of the said islands, ordered certain relief and preventive measures to be taken for the fire affected persons as would appear from Annexure 'A' to the writ application. Clause 4 of the said relief measures provides inter alia, measures to be taken by the Chairman, Municipal Board, Port Blair for allotting shops on priority basis to those shop owners, whose shops were gusted by the said fire, when new shops will be constructed by the Municipal Board. Since the petitioners were also affected by the said devastating fire, as their shops were completely gutted by such file, they made representations to the island Administration on 11th August, 1988 and the Assistant Commissioner (HQ) by his memo No. 2-7/LR/88/6308, dated 16th September, 1988 issued on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Port Blair (Annexure 'C') informed the petitioners that the Hon'ble Lt. Governor Andaman and Nicobar Islands had already instructed the Chairman, Municipal Board, Port Blair on 12th January, 1988 to consider the cases of those victims of fire whose shops were destroyed by such fire, on priority basis regarding allotment of shops on rent basis on completion of the shops under construction by the Municipal Board; but inspite of such facts neither the Municipal Board nor the Island Administration had taken any positive steps in the matter and all the representations made to such authorities by the petitioners went in vain. On the contrary, the Municipal Board, Port Blair by its resolution dated 30th July, 1991 (Annexure 'I') had taken a decision to allot shop rooms in its newly constructed market complexes by public auctions to the highest bidders, which action is the subject matter of challenge in the present Civil Rule. 3. The Rule is being opposed by the Municipal Board as well as by the Island Administration by filing affidavits-in-opposition. The Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 namely, the Municipal Authorities, in their affidavit-in-opposition stated inter alia, that the Municipality was under no obligation to provide shop rooms to the petitioners; that the memorandum dated 12th January, 1988 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman District (Annexure 'A' to the writ application) containing certain directions of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands regarding reliefs to be provided for the fire victims, were merely recommendations and/or suggestion and not directions as per s. 191 of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Municipal Boards) Regulation, 1957 and therefore were not binding upon the Municipal-Board; no doubt, previously the fire victims in the year 1974 were allotted shop rooms in the market by the Municipal Board, but the land and money for such construction of market were given by the Island Administration to the Municipal Board for the said purpose, that the matter for providing shops to the petitioners was discussed at the meeting of the Municipal Board, but it was decided that such allotments should be made through open auctions, that the Municipal Board did not violate any of the directions given by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under the provisions of the Regulations of 1957; the suffering of the petitioners, if any, cannot be attributed to any act of the Municipal Board as it had no direct responsibility in the matter and it cannot be said that the petitioners are still now suffering, as they are now doing business in different shop rooms elsewhere as specified in paragraph No. 22 of the said affidavit-in-opposition. 4. The Island Administration in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by it, stated inter alia, that because of the fire that had taken place in January, 1988, eight houses were completely gutted, eleven houses were dismantled and one hundred and fifty four persons sustained loss including fifteen house owners; that the Hon'ble Lt. 4. The Island Administration in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by it, stated inter alia, that because of the fire that had taken place in January, 1988, eight houses were completely gutted, eleven houses were dismantled and one hundred and fifty four persons sustained loss including fifteen house owners; that the Hon'ble Lt. Governor after visiting the locale, issued certain directions, and instructions were issued to the Chairman, Municipal Board at Port Blair on 12th January, 1988 to consider the cases of the shop owners whose shops were gutted in the fire on priority basis for allotment of shops, but the Government never took over itself the perennial liability to maintain the victims. 5. Mr. Roy, Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends inter alia, that though the Municipal Board at Port Blair constituted under the 1957 Regulation, is a statutory body, enjoying certain rights and privileges under the said Regulation, but those are subject to the control of the Government and the Government orders and directions are binding on the Board and that even if the impugned action of the Board be said to be an administrative action, such action is justifiable in court or is subject to judicial review on the ground of fair play and refers to several decisions of the Supreme Court in 1989 (III) SCC 293 ; 1990(1) SCC 613 ; 1990 (III) SCC pages 232 and 752, and referring to the said decisions, he contends that the impugned decisions of the Municipal Board at Port Blair cannot be termed as fair and reasonable and the impugned inaction of the Government is also not fair and just. 6. Me. Parekh, Learned Advocate for the Municipal Board, Port Blair, however, contends that be Government does not enjoy an absolute control over the Board and such control is subject to the provisions of the Regulation of 1957 and refers to the ss. 40, 186 and 191 (1) of the Regulation of 1957. 7. Mr. Shiv Saroop, Learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents, contends inter alia, that the Government no doubt enjoys control over the activities of the Board, but such control is subject to the provisions of the Regulation of 1957. 8. 40, 186 and 191 (1) of the Regulation of 1957. 7. Mr. Shiv Saroop, Learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents, contends inter alia, that the Government no doubt enjoys control over the activities of the Board, but such control is subject to the provisions of the Regulation of 1957. 8. In the present case, admittedly, a devastating fire broke out at the Aberdeen Bazaar area at Port Blair in the month of January, 1988 as a result of which, the petitioners' shops were, gutted and they thus suffered considerably due to such fire. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Lt. Governor issued certain directions and ordered different authorities to provide reliefs of different nature to the victims, as would appear from Annexure 'A' to the writ application, from which it clearly appears that the Hon'ble Lt. Governor directed that those persons, whose shops were gutted by the said fire, would be considered, for allotment of shops on rent/hire purchase basis on priority by the Municipal Board when new shops are constructed by them. From the wordings of such directions, it is quite clear, that those were mandatory in nature and not merely suggestions or requests, made to the Board, and the Board is bound to carry out such administrative directions or mandates, so far as Annexure 'R III' to the affidavit-in-opposition of the Board is concerned, that is a guideline relating to all future allotment of shop by the Board and the Board's views on the same was asked for, but it has got nothing to do with the aforesaid Annexure 'A' nor can the Board avoid its liability to allot shops to the petitioners as per the said directions (Annexure 'A') simply by treating the same as mere suggestions or that such directions were not binding upon it. 9. No doubt, s. 40 of the 1957 Regulation speaks of the duties of the Board and such power includes the power to make reasonable provisions for constructing, altering and maintaining markets but subject to the direction and general control of the Public Works Department and that shows that the Board doesn't enjoy immunity from being supervised or controlled by the Island Administration. Moreover, the opening words of the said s. 40 says that subject to such exceptions and conditions as the Chief Commissioner (now the Hon'ble Lt. Moreover, the opening words of the said s. 40 says that subject to such exceptions and conditions as the Chief Commissioner (now the Hon'ble Lt. Governor) may, from time to time, make and impose, it would be the duty of the Board to make reasonable provision for several items as mentioned in the said s. 40, and it is therefore clear, that the Island Administration enjoys the overall and also the ultimate control over the Board's act; and deeds. 10. Chapter XIII of the Regulation of 1957, specially ss. 186 and 191 under the said Chapter, speaks of the volume and/or extent of the control of the Deputy Commissioner over the Board and it is argued on bebalf of the respondents that such control must be exercised as per the provisions of the said sections and should not travel beyond the same, but one must not lose sight of the provisions of s. 188 of the said Regulation, under which, the Deputy Commissioner enjoys certain extraordinary powers over the Board in cases of emergency and such emergency means extraordinary circumstances. 11. It is provided inter alia, in sub-s. (1) of the said s. 188, that in case of emergency, the Deputy Commissioner may provide for the execution of any work, or the doing of any act, which a Board is empowered to execute or do, and the immediate execution of doing of which, is in his opinion, necessary for the service or safety of the public. The workings of the said section makes it clear that the Board does not enjoy unbridled autonomy or, that the Government's control over the Board is subject to the provisions of ss. 186 or 191 of the Regulation only. On the contrary, it is quite clear from the provisions of s. 188(1), that if exigency of the situation so demands, as in the present case, the Government can pass any order directing the Board to do a particular thing in a particular, manner for the public necessity. Accordingly, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Lt. On the contrary, it is quite clear from the provisions of s. 188(1), that if exigency of the situation so demands, as in the present case, the Government can pass any order directing the Board to do a particular thing in a particular, manner for the public necessity. Accordingly, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, as contained in the office Memo dated 12th January, 1988, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman District (Annexure 'A' to the writ application) must be construed as mandatory directions, issued under the extraordinary power of the Government under s. 188(1) of the 1957 Regulation and are bound to be carried out by the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 and the said respondents cannot shun or shake off their such liability in any way. Moreover, the petitioners cannot also be allowed to suffer by allowing the respondents to force the petitioners to move like, shuttle cocks or from pillar to post in order to get the relief as promised by the respondents. 12. So far as the decisions cited by Mr. Ray are concerned, undoubtedly, those are authorities for the proposition of law that administrative action of the State or the public Bodies are justiciable in court, or are subject to judicial review and should be judged from the point of view of fair play. In the present case, the petitioners, who have suffered due to the devastating fire that had destroyed their shop rooms completely, were definitely denied justice by the Board in not allotting shops to them in the Municipal markets constructed subsequently by the Board, totally ignoring the mandatory directions of the Government as contained in Annexure 'A' to the writ application, and it can very well be said, that although justice perhaps had been done by the Government to the petitioners, who are the fire victims, by issuing the mandatory directions as contained in the said Annexure 'A' regarding allotment of shops to them by the Board on priority basis, but the impugned resolutions of the Board being Annexure 1' series to the writ application, will clearly show that justice had not appeared to have been done to the petitioners by the Board at all. The impugned resolutions of the Board dated 26th and 30th July, 1991 (Annexure I series to the writ application) thus, cannot be sustained in law for the reasons as aforesaid and are therefore quashed. The impugned resolutions of the Board dated 26th and 30th July, 1991 (Annexure I series to the writ application) thus, cannot be sustained in law for the reasons as aforesaid and are therefore quashed. The fact that some of the petitioners are doing business elsewhere, would not deprive the petitioners of their right to get allotment of shops by the Board as per the Government's directions as contained in Annexure 'A' more so, when the same is not fully admitted by the petitioners' learned Advocate. 13. The respondents nos. 7 and 8 are directed to allot shops to the petitioners as per the directions of the Hon'ble Lt. Governor dated 12th January, 1988, as contained in clause 4 thereof (Annexure 'A' to the writ application), positively, within three months from date. 14. The Rule is made absolute to the extent as indicated above without any order as to costs. 15. Let a xerox copy of this order be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking to apply for certified copy of this order. Rule made absolute; directions given.