(dissenting)-
I respectfully dissent. Although I cannot express any disagreement with the statutory interpretation in the majority opinion, the Declaratory Judgment Act was not designed for giving advisory opinions in a nonadversary action.1
A declaratory judgment may not be rendered in an action where there is no justi-ciable controversy because the interests of the parties are not adverse. The courts have generally held that the following conditions must exist in order that declaratory relief may be obtained: (1) there must exist a justiciable controversy, i. e., a controversy in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy, i. e., a legally prqtectible interest; and (4) the issue involved in the controversy must be ripe for judicial determination.2
In the instant action, defendants prayed that plaintiffs’ action should be dismissed on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against the defendants named in the complaint. The trial court erred when it did not dismiss the action on this ground. The named defendants have no interest in contesting the claimed right asserted by plaintiffs; therefore, there is no justiciable controversy. Furthermore, the interests of the parties are neither adverse nor connected whatsoever. The plaintiffs have no legally protectible interests which may be affected by the acts of defendants.3 The plaintiffs do not assert that they might be prosecuted under Sec. 64-10-12, U.C.A.19S3; they may not complain of an action which does not affect them. There is no justiciable controversy where there are merely allegations concerning the violation of a penal statute by persons not parties to the action.4
There is also a defect in the parties defendant. Sec. 78-33-11, U.C.A.19S3, provides :
When declaratory relief is sought all persons shall be made parties who have or claim anj' interest which would be affected by the declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding.
*45Plaintiffs sought and the court granted an order enjoining the enforcement of Sec. 64-10-12, except in accordance with the interpretation asserted. Under Secs. 67-7-4 and 5, U.C.A.19S3, the district attorney, and under Sec. 17-18-1, U.C.A.19S3, the county attorney are vested with the prose-cutorial powers in the enforcement of the law of this State. Under Sec. 78-33-11, U.C.A.1953, the public officers charged by law with the enforcement of a challenged statute must be joined.5
The judgment of the trial court should he reversed.
HENRIOD, J., concurs in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of CAL-LISTER, C. J.. Backman v. Salt Lake County, 13 Utah 2d 412, 417, 375 P.2d 756 (1962).
. Lyon v. Bateman, 119 Utah 434, 439, 228 P.2d 818 (1951); Langer v. State, 69 N.D. 129, 284 N.W. 238, 245 (1939).
. Maryland Naturopathic Assn. v. Kloman, 191 Md. 626, 62 A.2d 538, 539-540 (1948).
. Wisconsin Pharmaceutical Assn. v. Lee, 264 Wis. 325, 58 N.W.2d 700, 702 (1953).
. Wisconsin Pharmaceutical Assn. v. Lee, footnote 4, supra; Maryland Naturopathic Assn. v. Kloman, footnote 3, supra.