G.P. Singh, C.J.
1. This order shall also dispose of Misc. Petns. Nos. 26 and 154 both of 1981.
2. The petitioners in all these petitions are 'B' Class prisoners. They challenge the order dated 17th Dec. 1980 passed by the State Government abolishing the division of prisoners into A, B and C Classes and the order of the Inspector General of Prisons, dated 29th Dec. 1980, directing that the rules in the Jail Manual relating to the classification are rendered ineffective in view of the order of the State Government. These orders are exhibited in Misc. Petn. No. 24 of 1981 as Annexures R-III and R-IV.
3. Section 59 of the Prisons Act 1894, empowers the State Government to make rules on a number of matters. Under this section, the State Government has power to make rules 'for the classification and separation of prisoners.' In exercise of this power the State Government mads rules which are contained in the Ja.il Manual. Rule 368 in this context is relevant which says that convicted criminal pri-; soners shall be divided into three classes : Class A, Class B and Class C There are other rules on various matters which deal with the different classes of prisoners separately. These are Rules 354, 368, 375, 376, 430, 431, 432, 436, 437, 546, 548, 578, 597, 620, 684, 665, 666, 671, 676, 746 and 747. By order Annexure R-III, the State Government on l'7tb Dec. 1980 took the decision to abolish the classification and directed the Inspector General of Prisons to take necessary steps for its implementation. The Inspector General by his order dated 29th Dec. 1980 made the aforesaid rules relating to classification ineffective. The order further states that steps are being taken for amending the rules. The statutory rules which . divide the prisoners into three classes A, B and C can be amended only by making rules under the Prisons Act. The executive decision taken by the State Government tot abolishing the classification Was not sufficient. The decision should have been followed up by amending the rules in the Jail Manual. The power to make Tules and to amend the same vests in the State Government. The Inspector General of Prisons could not suspend the rules relating to the classification of the prisoners or make them ineffective by his order dated 29th Dec. 1980. This is the infirmity in removing the classification. Indeed the order of the Inspector General realises the necessity of amending the rules and states that steps are bfing taken in that direction- Until the rules dealing with classification are repealed or amended by exercise of the rule making power Under Section 59 of the Prisons Act, they continue to have full force and effect. The decision of the Government to remove the classification cannot be taken to be a rule made Under Section 59. The distinction between a statutory rule and a decision to make a rule or an executive memorandum or order is well settled and the latter cannot have the effect of a statutory rule (Sunder Lai Vasudeva v. State of Punjab ; State of Assam v. B. K. Das : (1973)ILLJ119SC and Union of India v. Majji Jangam-mayya : 2SCR28 ). The classification continues, for the decision of the Government has not yet been properly implemented by amending the Rules.
4. The petitions are allowed. The order dated 29th Dec 1980 issued by Inspector General of Prisons making ineffective the rules in the Jail Manual relating to classification of prisoners is quashed. We further declare that the decision of the State Government dated 17th Dec. 1980 will not have the effect of abolishing the classification until it is implemented by making rules Under Section 59 of the Prisons Act. We express our thanks to Shri D. M. Dharmadhikari, Advocate, who appeared on our request as amicus curiae in this case. There will be no order as to costs.