N. V. RAMANA, J. ( 1 ) ALL these Writ Petitions are filed to declare G. O. Ms. No. 301, Panchayat Raj and rural Development (Progms. II) Dept, dated 13-7-98 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered by the petitioners for executing the works in Panchayat Raj Department and to set-aside the same and consequently declare the Circular Memo HOT1/1924/98, dated 4-8-98 of the 2nd respondent and the latest memo of even number, dated 13-4-99 as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to refund the amount if any recovered from the petitioners in pursuance of G. O. Ms. No. 301, dated 13-7-1998. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they are special class contractors registered with the Government of A. P. and carrying on works in various departments and they have entered into agreements for carrying the various works under comprehensive protected water supply scheme at various places in the State in the Panchayat Raj and rural Water Supply Department with the concerned Superintending Engineers in the year 1997 and 1998, that the 1st respondent issued G. O. Ms. No. 301, dated 13-7-1998 permitting all the Executive Engineers of the panchayat Raj Engineering Wing to conclude supplemental agreements with the contractors for the works under execution and to be entrusted in future and to deduct 0. 25% of the gross bill amount as per the request of the Builders Association of India and to remit the said amount to the Institute of Construction Technology of India at hyderabad by 5th of every succeeding month, that subsequently the 2nd respondent issued various circulars and memos and the latest being a circular dt. 13-4-1999 stating that if the Executive engineers do not deduct 0. 25% from the bills of the contractors and remit the same to the institute of Construction Technology of india at Hyderabad, action will be taken to deduct the same amount from the salary of the Executive Engineers concerned. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, these Writ Petitions are filed. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the builders Association of India, Andhra pradesh has made a representation to the government for inclusion of a clause in agreement/tenders for deduction of an amount at the rate of 0. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, these Writ Petitions are filed. ( 3 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the builders Association of India, Andhra pradesh has made a representation to the government for inclusion of a clause in agreement/tenders for deduction of an amount at the rate of 0. 25% of gross amount of bills for utilising the same for establishment of Institute of Construction technology of India renamed as national academy of Construction at Hyderabad for meeting the expenditure in running the institute, that basing on the representation, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 301, dated 13-7-1998 permitting the Executive engineers of Panchayat Raj Department to enter into supplemental agreements with the contractors for works under execution and to be entrusted in future and to deduct 0. 25% of gross amount of bills and remit it to the Institute of Construction Technology of india at Hyderabad, that the Government also issued orders in U. O. Note No. 29840/r- iii (2)/98 of T. R and B Dept. , dated 25-2-99 stating that the contractors should send their workmen to the training courses offered by national Academy of Construction from june 99 onwards and the contractors should not be given works unless their workmen are trained by National Academy of construction, that keeping the Government directions in view, the 2nd respondent issued Cr. Memo No. Tl/19240/98, dated 13-4-99 to collect 0. 25% contribution from the contractors compulsorily, that the institute is intended to give training to both engineers in the various departments in state Government and contractors with their workmen, that the Government have issued orders for collecting 0. 25% contribution from the work bills of the contractors in order to meet the day-to-day recurring expenditure of the Institution and it is useful for them and hence all the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in all these writ petitions is whether the Government is entitled to collect 0. 25% of the gross bill amount from the Contractors in respect of concluded contracts at the request of the builders association of India as per G:o. Ms. No. 301, dated 13-7-98? ( 4 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in all these writ petitions is whether the Government is entitled to collect 0. 25% of the gross bill amount from the Contractors in respect of concluded contracts at the request of the builders association of India as per G:o. Ms. No. 301, dated 13-7-98? ( 5 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the Government has no power or authority to give such instructions or issue such a G. O. in respect of the contracts, which are concluded and pursuant to which works are already under execution and the said action is arbitrary and illegal and that there is no statute or rule, which provides for such enforcement of collection. Counsel also contended that the respondents cannot go beyond the terms of the agreement and deduct the amount from the bills of the petitioners, which is going to affect the interests of the contractors adversely. Though the validity of the G. O. is challenged in this batch of writ petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners confined their arguments only to the retrospective application of the G. O. It is their case that the said G. O. cannot be made applicable to agreements, which were entered into and concluded prior to issuance of the G. O. ( 6 ) LEARNED Government Pleader submits that the intention of the Government to collect 0. 25% of the gross bill amount from the contractors as per G. O. Ms. No. 301, dated 13-7-98 and subsequent circulars is only to provide infrastructure facilities to the contractors and their employees by establishing an Institute known as national academy of Construction , that the G. O. was issued at the request of the Builders association of India to give proper training to both Engineers and Contractors with their workmen and from June, 1999 onwards the contractors will not be-given any work unless their workmen are trained by the national Academy of Construction. ( 7 ) PERUSED the material paperd on record. However, laudable the object in issuing the g. O. , may be, when once a contract is concluded and the rates are fixed, insisting on the contractors at that stage to enter into supplemental agreements enabling the government to deduct 0. ( 7 ) PERUSED the material paperd on record. However, laudable the object in issuing the g. O. , may be, when once a contract is concluded and the rates are fixed, insisting on the contractors at that stage to enter into supplemental agreements enabling the government to deduct 0. 25% of the gross bill amount towards the National Academy of Construction is illegal, and by way of a g. O. Government cannot insist on the contractors to enter into such supplemental agreements. Before raising any demand, proper procedure has to be followed. The respondents have failed to show any provision or statute or rule, which empowers them to collect such an amount. The action of the respondents is an arbitrary exercise of power. When once the contract is concluded, both parties have no right to go beyond the terms of the contract until and unless both of them agree for such revision of the terms and conditions of the contract. The unilateral decision of the Government for deduction of 0. 25% of the gross bill amount from the concluded contracts without consulting the contractors for the purpose of establishment of National academy of Construction is arbitrary and illegal. ( 8 ) IT is settled rule of construction that every statute is prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. This rule of construction is applicable where the object of any statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burden or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be of prospective operation only. Every statute, which takes away or impairs vested rights, acquired under existing Laws, or creates new obligation or imposes a new duty or attaches a new disability in respect of a transaction, which has already been completed, must be presumed to be intended not to have retrospective effect. Similarly, the power to make subordinate legislation, and frame rules and regulations is derived from the enabling Act, and cannot have retrospective operation, unless the parent statute confers the power to make rules retrospectively. ( 9 ) EXECUTIVE or Administrative instructions, (in exercise of the powers under Article 162 of tfte Constitution or under a statute), can only be issued to supplant Laws (either Plenary or subordinate) and cannot supplement them. ( 9 ) EXECUTIVE or Administrative instructions, (in exercise of the powers under Article 162 of tfte Constitution or under a statute), can only be issued to supplant Laws (either Plenary or subordinate) and cannot supplement them. This being the case, such executive instructions, in the form of Government orders, can only have prospective effect and cannot be made applicable to take away vested or existing rights. The parties herein are governed by the terms of the contract, mutually agreed upon, which do not provide for recovery of any amount vide g. O. Ms. No. 301, dt. 13-7-1998. By way of the impugned Government Order, parties cannot be forced to waive their rights under the contract. Nor can the G. O. be made applicable to transactions which have already been completed prior to the date of issuance of the G. O. To the extent, the government order has retrospective effect and impairs vested rights of the Contractors, the order is vitiated by arbitrariness and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, the validity or otherwise of the g. O. , if made applicable prospectively need not be gone into in the present writ petition, since the contentions advanced is only regarding the validity of the retrospective obligations cast upon the contractors by the impugned G. O. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, it must be held that the impugned G. O. No. 301, dt. 13-7-1998 will come into operation from the date of its issuance i. e. , w. e. f. 13-7-1998 and the Government cannot give retrospective effect to the said G. O. by applying the same to contracts concluded prior to the date of the G. O. or to the consequential Memo dt. 4-9-1998 issued for implementation of the said G. O. ( 11 ) ALL these writ petitions are accordingly disposed of directing the respondents not to recover any amount under the said G. O. prior to the date of its coming into force i. e. , 13-7-1998 and they are further directed to refund the amount already collected from the petitioners as per the said G. O. No order as to costs.