Judgment : 1. The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment in A.S.No. 119 of 1980 on the file of Sub-Court, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 886 of 1978 on the file of the Additional District Munsif s Court, Madurai Town. The facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent claiming to be the Secretary of Om Saravana Bhave ThiruMurugan Primary School, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,401-50 as the contribution payable to the School by the Madurai City Municipal Corporation/appellant herein. The Contribution was claimed for the period from 10. 1974 to 30.9.1977. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the Municipal Corporation was bound to pay 5 paise per day for 200 days for 150 students. The respondent had to barrow and feed the students notwithstanding the fact that the Corporation failed to pay their contribution. In the written statement the Corporation contended that there is no statutory duty on the Corporation to pay the contribution to the School in question. There were subsequent Government Orders which had practically exempted the Municipality. In any event, the respondent/plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. A plea of limitation was also raised. On the above pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim? (2) Whether the amount claimed for the period from 10. 74 to 2. 75 is barred by limitation? (3) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? The trial Court dismissed the suit on a finding that the suit itself was premature because of the subsequent memorandum of the Government dated 20.3.1997 marked as Ex.B.2. However, on appeal, the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the liability of the Corporation to make the contribution is reiterated in Exs.B.1 and B.2. Accordingly, the appellate Court held that the suit amount was payable to the respondent/plaintiff and decreed the suit. The Municipal Corporation has come up on appeal. 2. Basically, I am unable to see how the respondent/plaintiff has a right to recover the suit amount as and by way of contribution. The Noon-meal Scheme was introduced by way of the Government Orders. The various Government Orders and Letters issued from time to time by the Government are between the Government and the respective Municipalities. 2. Basically, I am unable to see how the respondent/plaintiff has a right to recover the suit amount as and by way of contribution. The Noon-meal Scheme was introduced by way of the Government Orders. The various Government Orders and Letters issued from time to time by the Government are between the Government and the respective Municipalities. They do not create a right in favour of a School or the Secretary of the School to demand contribution from the local bodies. If the Municipalities, had disobeyed the orders of the Government, it is for the Government to take action against a particular Municipality. to repeat, none of the Government Orders creates a right in favour of any of the School to demand payment of the contribution and seek to recover the same by filing a suit. In this view of the matter both the Courts below have not directed their attention to the proper issue between the parties. The appellant had categorically raised the issue that there is no liability on the part of the Municipality to pay the suit amount and that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file a suit. This issue had never been answered by either of the Courts below. None of the document filed by the respondent/plaintiff creates a right in favour of the plaintiff to claim the suit amount. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. There is no statutory liability cast on the defendant/Municipality to pay the amount. In this view of the matter the suit claim is not at all maintainable and consequently the second appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court is restored, though for different reasons. No costs.