JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by Association of Management of Colleges running PTC, C.P.Ed. and B.Ed. courses. The challenge in this petition is to the order and directions dated 18.5.2011 issued by the 2nd respondent-Director of Primary Education, Government of Gujarat, wherein it is directed that self-financed college management will be entitled to fill up 10% seats as management quota and that after the management quota seats are filled up and the allotment of Central Admission Committee is over, the seats which will remain unfilled will not be permitted to be filled up by the management, i.e. 90% of the seats will be filled up by the Central Admission Committee as per the Central Admission Committee Rules. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition can be summarised as under:- 2.1 It appears that as per the Government Resolution dated 11th May, 2005 issued by the Education Department of the State Government, the self-financed colleges are entitled to fill up 10% seats of the management quota whereas remaining 90% seats will be filled up by the Central Admission Committee. As per the case of the petitioners, many a times, many seats remain vacant and, therefore, the vacant seats which the Central Admission Committee is unable to fill up should be allowed to be filled up by the management. The petitioners have relied upon some orders passed earlier by this Court in this regard in support of their claim. Relying on such orders, which have been passed earlier, the petitioners contend that this Court may also issue writ of mandamus to the respondents to permit the petitioners to fill up the unfilled seats beyond 10% management quota. 3. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Administrative Officer [Legal], office of the Director of Primary Education, Gandhinagar. Relevant paragraphs of the affidavit-in-reply are reproduced herein below for better adjudication of the controversy: “4. I submit that the main prayer of the petitioner is that as per the Government Resolution the Self Finance PTC Colleges are being given 10% of the management quota for filling up seats and remaining 90% are filled up by the Central Admission Committee. Relevant paragraphs of the affidavit-in-reply are reproduced herein below for better adjudication of the controversy: “4. I submit that the main prayer of the petitioner is that as per the Government Resolution the Self Finance PTC Colleges are being given 10% of the management quota for filling up seats and remaining 90% are filled up by the Central Admission Committee. Many a times many seat remain vacant which are to be filled up by the Central Admission Committee and therefore what the petitioner wants is that when there are remaining vacant seats the same should be allowed to be filled up by the management. By prayer this the petitioner wants that the 10% should be increased to more than 10% which cannot be permitted and therefore petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I submit that after the examination of 12th standard there is a two year course of PTC for which the admission are given according to the “Central Admission Committee Rules” which is followed. 6. I submit that there are 8 Government PTC Colleges, 43 Non-Government PTC Colleges 2 are for tribal areas, 23 are District Education and Training Institution and there are approximately 346 Self Finance Institution and the students are given admission of those colleges by the Rules. 7. I submit that in the Government Colleges the admission are given 100% on the basis of the Central Admission Committee Rules whereas Self Finance Institutions 90% seats are filled by these Rules. 8. I submit that in the year 2010 intake capacity of those colleges were 32,000 against which 25,000 applications were received and 12,500 were granted admission according to the Rules. I submit that in the year 2011; 14,000 applications were received; out of which 7072 students were granted admission till 29.06.2011. 9. I submit that there is Government Resolution 11.05.2005 whereby it is specifically stated that only 10% will be reserved for the management quota and 90% has to be filled up by the Rules prescribed for admission in PTC Colleges. A copy of the resolution dated 11.05.2005 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R I to this affidavit. 10. 9. I submit that there is Government Resolution 11.05.2005 whereby it is specifically stated that only 10% will be reserved for the management quota and 90% has to be filled up by the Rules prescribed for admission in PTC Colleges. A copy of the resolution dated 11.05.2005 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R I to this affidavit. 10. I most humbly submit that last year when the permission was granted for filling up the remaining vacant seats by the management quota, huge illegalities and irregularities were found out which was not only published in the newspapers but was also the issue was taken up very seriously by Central Admission Committee, whereby the President of the Public Account Committee had written communications to the Higher Authorities of the State Government, inter alia, making the inquiry in this matter inasmuch as that it was found that the students were only given the certificate of admission by way of corruption and admission of certain fees but they were actually not present in the colleges and therefore it was found out that they were dummy students with bogus certificate. The copy of the paper cuttings & communications are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R II Colly to this affidavit. 11. It is cause huge illegality in the admission procedure and therefore it should not only be in the interest of students but also for the State that the Rules as prescribed by the State may be follow strictly to avoid such illegalities and bogus admissions which only encourage wrong and corrupt practices in these colleges, resulting into playing with the future and career of students inasmuch as that the students may get bogus certificate but will not be able to get actual education and in future if their admissions or their education qualifications are challenged, the students would be in hardship and face much difficulties than what might be faced otherwise and therefore in the interest of the State as well as student; Government Resolutions are issued upon which impugned communication dated 18.05.2011 is issued to all the Self Finance Institutions and therefore the same is just and proper and serve the purpose of equity. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.” 4. Firstly, we are not at all impressed with the contention of the petitioners based on some orders which this Court may have passed in past. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.” 4. Firstly, we are not at all impressed with the contention of the petitioners based on some orders which this Court may have passed in past. What is binding to this Court would be the law, if laid down any, in the judgment. It would be expedient to quote what has been observed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and anr. v. Major Bahadur Singh, reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 368, as under: “9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton ( 1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge." 10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech.....is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge." 10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech.....is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." and, in Herrington v. British Railways Board ( 1972 (2) WLR 537 ) Lord Morris said: "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case." 11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 12. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. *** *** *** "Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." 5. The case put up by the petitioners and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State makes the picture abundantly clear. As per the policy of the government, i.e. as per the Government Resolution, 10% seats are to be filled up by the management under the management quota whereas 90% of the seats shall be filled up by the Central Admission Committee. The case put up by the petitioners and the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State makes the picture abundantly clear. As per the policy of the government, i.e. as per the Government Resolution, 10% seats are to be filled up by the management under the management quota whereas 90% of the seats shall be filled up by the Central Admission Committee. The entire thrust of the submission of the petitioners in this petition is that in past, this Court has permitted self-financed PTC colleges to fill up the seats which remained unfilled beyond 10% management quota. Firstly, assuming for the moment that in past, this Court may have permitted self-financed colleges to fill up the unfilled seats, but that by itself, would not be sufficient to claim as a matter of right to permit filling up of unfilled seats beyond 10% management quota. 6. This writ petition can be disposed on a very small but very important legal issue. It must be remembered that the petition is for a mandamus. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Governing Body of Nalanda College, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1210 , has pointed out that in order that mandamus may issue to compel an authority to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. In the present case, we do not find any such legal right under the statute or any other rules or regulations which the petitioners can assert while seeking mandamus from this Court to allow the petitioners to fill up the unfilled seats beyond 10% management quota seats. 7. In Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana, reported in 1977 [1] SCC 486, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something.” 8. There must be a judicially enforceable right as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something.” 8. In the above view of the matter, we conclude by observing that the petitioners have no legal right to claim that they must be permitted to fill up the seats which remain unfilled through the Central Admission Committee beyond allotted quota of 10% i.e. management quota and the respondents have no legal duty to permit the petitioners to fill up the unfilled seats beyond their allotted 10% management quota. 9. We do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby rejected with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.