M. Katju, J. - (1.) -The petitioners have challenged the impugned recovery. The validity of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act has been upheld by this Court in Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. and others v. State Bank of India and others, 2003 (51) ALR 803.
(2.) AS regards the petitioners' prayer for rehabilitation he has relied on the Government orders dated 13.11.1995 and 5.4.1999. In our opinion these Government orders are only executive instructions and confer no right on the petitioners as they are not statutory orders. It is well-settled that purely administrative orders, which have no statutory force, are not enforceable in a court of law, vide Fernandez v. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 1753 (Para 12) ; State of Maharashtra v. Lok Shikshan Sanstha, AIR 1973 SC 588 (Para 27) ; Union of India v. Maiji, AIR 1977 SC 757 (Paras 31-36) etc. Such administrative orders do not have the force of law, and hence confer no legal right on anyone, vide Satyanarain v. Mallikarjun, AIR 1960 SC 137 (142) ; Abdullah Rowther v. S.T.A.T., AIR 1959 SC 896 (899) ; Saxena v. State of M. P., AIR 1967 SC 1264 (1267) ; Mahendra v. State of U. P., AIR 1963 SC 1019 (1035). Hence, no writ lies for enforcement of an administrative order vide Nagendra v. Commissioner, AIR 1958 SC 398 (412-13) ; Abdullah Rowther v. S.T.A.T., AIR 1959 SC 896 (Paras 11 and 18) ; Raman v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 694 (700) etc. In view of the above this petition is dismissed.;