S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal raises a question with regard to interpretation of Rule 4 of the A. P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, recognition, Administration and Control of schools under Private Management) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as rules for the sake of brevity) framed under G. O. Ms. No. 1 Education (P. S. 2) Department dated 1-1-1974, which reads thus-"4. Criteria of Establishment of schools:- (1) The following shall be the broad guidelines to be considered for grant of permission for the establishment of new schools or upgradation of existing schools- (a) Educational needs of the localities taking into consideration the population of the school going children in the locality and their coverage by the existing schools; (b) Need to avoid unhealthy competition among the schools in the locality; (c) The viability of the proposed school after taking into consideration of the facts resolved to the Clauses (a) and (b) above. The explanation appended to the said rule is as follows:-"explanation - For the purpose of this rule, the locality shall be as follows- (i) for pre-primary/primary schools, the village or an area having a population of 200 and above 1 KMs. from the proposed location; (ii) for Upper Primary Schools, the village or having a population of 200 and above and a radius of 2 kms. from which village/ habitation. In urban areas it shall be 2 KMs. from the proposed location; (iii) for the High Schools, the village or an area having a population of 200 and above and radius of 5 KMs. from such village/area. In urban areas, it shall be 5 KMs. from the proposed location. (2) In respect of applications from minority Educational Institutions, the same shall be considered from the view point of minorities and notwithstanding the lack of need on a general basis. " ( 2 ) THE appellant herein filed the writ petition purported to be aggrieved by the decision taken by the appropriate authority according permission to open 8th Class (Telugu Medium) in Mandal Parishad upper Primary School, Audipudi village of karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District for the academic year 2000-2001 inter alia on the ground that the said village is at a distance of 1:3 KMs. only from Yerramvaripalem village. ( 3 ) THE appellant is a member of the Zilla parishad Educational Committee of yerramvaripalem village. only from Yerramvaripalem village. ( 3 ) THE appellant is a member of the Zilla parishad Educational Committee of yerramvaripalem village. His grievance is that if the 8th Class section is sanctioned to the Mandal Parishad Upper Primary school, Audipudi, the strength of the school in his village would come down. ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge having regard to the various decisions of the Apex court in Prabodh Verma vs. State of U. P. Ishwar Singh vs. Kuldip Singh, ]. Jose dhanpaul vs. S. Thomas and Arun Tewari vs. Zila Mansavi Shaikshak Sangh inter alia held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It was further found that in any event no. material has been placed before the Court to show as to whether the distance of 1. 5 KMs. referred to in the Explanation appended to rule 4 aforementioned was correct or not. The learned Single Judge also held that having regard to the decision of the Apex court in Unnikrishnan vs. State of A. P. the said rule cannot be given effect to. ( 5 ) SRI M. V. Ramana Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inter alia submits that the Rules being statutory in nature must be given full effect to. According to the learned Counsel, the said Rule must have been made having regard to the necessity of establishing number of schools in an area and thus the explanation to Rule 4 aforementioned must be held to be mandatory in nature. ( 6 ) THERE cannot be any doubt whatsoever that before an adverse order is passed against a party, he should given an opportunity of being heard, as thereby the principles of audi alteram partem can be fully given effect to. It is apparent that the school in question in whose favour the order impugned in the writ petition was passed, was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition. Thus, having regard to the decision referred to herein before, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the writ petition was not maintainable. ( 7 ) PRIMARY Education has now been held to be a fundamental right in Unnikrishnan (supra) wherein the Apex Court held"the citizens have a fundamental right to education. The said right flows from art. 21. This right is, however, not an absolute right. ( 7 ) PRIMARY Education has now been held to be a fundamental right in Unnikrishnan (supra) wherein the Apex Court held"the citizens have a fundamental right to education. The said right flows from art. 21. This right is, however, not an absolute right. Its content and parameters have to be determined in the light of Arts. 45 and 41. In other words, every child/citizen of this country has a right to free education until he completes the age of fourteen years. The right to education which is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 must be construed in the light of directive principles in Part IV of the constitution. " ( 8 ) THE Rule, which is a subordinate legislation prior to the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land in terms of Art. 141 of the constitution of India, must be interpreted keeping in view the said law. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that any policy decision taken by the State with a view to adopt the Directive Principles of State policy and give effect to the fundamental right by which children below the age of 14 years should be given free education, cannot be construed in such a fashion which would deprive the children of their basic fundamental right. So read, the Explanation to Rule 4 aforementioned cannot be held to be a mandatory provision so as to enable the appellant to obtain a writ or order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus from this court. In any event, the aforementioned explanation to Rule 4 must he read in the context of the main Rule. Rule 4 (1) as noticed herein before merely provides for a broad guideline. Such a broad guideline laid down by the State either by reason of a policy decision or a statutory rule can in no situation be held to be mandatory in nature keeping in view the fact that no consequence therefore has been provided. Violation of such guidelines in also not justiciable. ( 9 ) WE may mention that an Explanation to a statute has the following functions as has been held by the Apex Court in s. Sundaram Pillai vs. R. Pattabhiraman. Violation of such guidelines in also not justiciable. ( 9 ) WE may mention that an Explanation to a statute has the following functions as has been held by the Apex Court in s. Sundaram Pillai vs. R. Pattabhiraman. "the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision is - (a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself; (b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve; (c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful; (d) an explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, and (e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same. " ( 10 ) THE Explanation to Rule 4 aforementioned being merely explanatory in nature must be read in the context of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 which, as noticed herein above, merely provided a guideline. The explanation appended to Rule 4, being for the purpose of Rule 4, thereby the character of the legislation as envisaged under Rule 4 cannot be changed to the detriment thereof. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment. ( 12 ) THE Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.