Discuss (a) Directive order

in Nepal The frame: Nepal's administrative law is overwhelmingly judge-made — the Supreme Court's writ jurisprudence (the extraordinary jurisdiction under the Constitutions of 2047 and 2072, Articles 133/144's ancestors) built the doctrines the statutes later codified. The story in five movements: (a) The writ jurisdiction's constitutional foundation From the 1990 Constitution (Article 88's plenary jurisdiction) to the Constitution 2072 (Articles 133/144: the extraordinary and appellate powers; Article 46's rights-enforcement), the Supreme Court as the administrative acts' constitutional reviewer — the five writs (Unit 7.3) as the citizen's toolkit. The jurisdiction's breadth: ANY law's constitutional review (the any-citizen power) + ANY administrative act's legality review — administrative law's engine room. (b) The doctrines the Court built The ultra vires discipline: the administration's acts confined to the statutory grant — the delegation's limits enforced (Unit 4's case law); The natural-justice jurisprudence: the hearing and impartiality rights read into every rights-affecting decision — even where the statute was silent (Unit 5's floor as the Court's creation); The reasoned-decision requirement: the orders without reasons quashed — the reasoning duty as review's precondition; The proportionality's arrival: from the deferential Wednesbury-style review to the rights- cases' closer scrutiny — the modern method; The legitimate expectation's recognition: the administration's practice and promise protected in the fairness's name; The interim-order practice: the stay and status-quo orders — the…