Judgment :- 1. This appeal is against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in OP. No 8900 of 1983-J quashing the proceedings of the Government and the Education Department for the upgradation of an Upper Primary School under the educational agency of the fourth respondent in the Original Petition into a High School. The learned judge found that the preliminary list in regard to the opening of new schools/ upgradation of schools drawn up by the Director of Public Instruction was without adverting to all the relevant matters in sub-rule (1) of R.2 of Chapter V of the KER., the enquiry under sub-rule (3) was only about the impact of including the area of the Upper Primary School for upgradation on the neighbouring schools and not with respect to the educational needs of the locality and that there was no material before the Director as to the educational need when he finalised the list of places for sanctioning new schools or upgradation of existing schools. According to the learned judge, the Government also had, at the stage of approval under sub-rule (4), no material to support the crucial matters required to be considered under the rules. The learned judge, however, found that the order under sub-rule (5) on a second look into the matter passed by the Government was unassailable. Nevertheless at the earlier stage when the matter had been gone into, there was dearth of material. The grant in favour of the 4th respondent cannot, according to the learned judge, be sustained in law. 2. The responsibility of providing educational facilities in the State is of the Government admits of no doubt. The Preamble to the Kerala Education Act, 1958 states that the Act is passed for the better organisation and development of educational institutions in the State providing a valid and comprehensive educational service throughout the State. As per S.3 of the Act it is the responsibility of the Government to regulate the primary and other stages of education and courses of instruction in Government and private schools, and it is also its responsibility to take such steps from time to time as are considered necessary or expedient for the purpose of providing facilities for genera! education, special education and for training of teachers. education, special education and for training of teachers. It is also the responsibility of the Government under S.9 of the Act to pay the salary of the teachers and non-teaching staff of all aided schools in the State. The Government is also required to pay to the Managers of aided schools a maintenance grant at the prescribed rates and also grants-in -aid for the purchase, improvement and repairs of any land, building or equipment of aided schools in the State. The procedure for determination of the areas where new schools are to be opened or existing schools are to be upgraded is contained in R.2 of Chapter V of the KER. As per sub-rule(1) the Director is required, from time to time, to prepare a list of localities where new schools are to be opened and existing schools are to be upgraded. In preparing the list the Director has to take into consideration the matters enumerated as (a) to (e) in sub-rule (1). These include the existing schools in and around the locality, the strength of the several standards and the accommodation available in each of the existing schools, the distance from each of the existing schools to the area where new schools are to be opened or existing schools are to be upgraded, the educational needs of the locality with reference to the habitation and backwardness of the area, and also any other matter which the Director considers relevant in the matter of choice of the locality for sanctioning new schools or the upgradation of existing schools. Under sub-rule (2) the Director is required to publish the preliminary list prepared by him under sub-rule (I) in the Gazette, inviting objections or representations to be filed before the Assistant Educational Officer or the District Educational Officer as the case may be. Sub-rule (3) enjoins the Educational Officer to conduct an enquiry and send his report with his views on the objections received to the Director within the time specified. The Director may also, if found necessary, hear the parties and finalise the list and forward the same to the Government with his recommendations within the time mentioned in the said sub-rule. Sub-rule (4) provides for the approval of the final list by the Government with or without modifications after scrutiny and the final list as approved by the Government is to be published by the Director in the Gazette. Sub-rule (4) provides for the approval of the final list by the Government with or without modifications after scrutiny and the final list as approved by the Government is to be published by the Director in the Gazette. Sub-rule (5) provides for a second look into the matter by the Government either suo motu or on application by any person objecting to the list published by the Director under sub-rule (4). The Government may, on reconsideration, make such modifications to the list as are deemed fit by way of additions or omissions on satisfaction that any relevant ground has not been taken into consideration or any irrelevant ground has been taken into consideration while finalising the list. 3. The relevant files relating to the case were placed before the learned Single Judge and are also placed before me by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 in the Original Petition. The files disclose that the Government had, on 6-2-1982, intimated the Director that it had decided to notify a fresh list of 75 places for opening and upgrading various categories of aided schools for the year 1982-83 with a view to meet the complaints in regard to deserving places being omitted and to start schools in those areas where there is urgent need. The files disclose that there was a subsequent communication by the Government addressed to the Director on 12-3-1982 wherein it is stated that the Government had received representations from various educational agencies. Panchayats etc. about the inadequacy of the number of new schools already approved by the Government and requesting for sufficient number of additional schools to be opened, after its earlier decision opening/upgradation of 75 new schools. Accordingly the Government had revised its earlier decision dated 6-2-1982 and had decided to notify 275 areas for the opening of new private aided schools for the academic year 1982-83. The Director was requested to take necessary steps for opening/upgradation of 275 new schools in the State for the year 1982-83. On receipt of this communication the Director published a preliminary list dated 15-3-1982 under sub-rule (1) of R.2, a copy of which is produced in the OP. as Ext. P1. Item 87 in Ext. P1 is "Mundiappally" where the existing Upper Primary School of the 4th respondent in the OP. is to be upgraded into a High School. On receipt of this communication the Director published a preliminary list dated 15-3-1982 under sub-rule (1) of R.2, a copy of which is produced in the OP. as Ext. P1. Item 87 in Ext. P1 is "Mundiappally" where the existing Upper Primary School of the 4th respondent in the OP. is to be upgraded into a High School. The petitioner is an educational agency having a number of schools in the State. It has two High Schools, one at a distance of 2 Kms. and the other at a distance of 3 Kms. from Mundiappally where the existing U.P. School was proposed to be upgraded. Ext. P3 dated 3-4-1982 is a copy of the objections filed by the petitioner against the proposal in Ext. P1 for upgradation of the existing U.P. School at Mundiappally. A reading of Ext. P3 would show that he had raised two objections viz.. that the educational needs of the locality do not justify the upgradation of the U.P. School into a Secondary School, and that the strength of his existing High Schools at Kunnamthanam and Kaviyoor will be considerably affected if another High School is to be established at Mundiappally. Ext. P3 was the only objection against the proposal for the upgradation of the U.P. School at Mundiappally; no other person had objected to the proposal. The objection was enquired into by the District Educational Officer who submitted a report to the Director as required by sub-rule (3) of R.2 and the Director, apparently after considering the objections and the report of the District Educational Officer, finalised the list and published the same in the Gazette. Ext. P4 dated 27-1-1983 is the final list published by the Director. The petitioner filed Exts. P5 and P7 representations against the final list before the Government, and the Government passed Ext P8 order dated 30-9-1983 rejecting the representations by the petitioner against Ext P4 list, and upholding the decision to upgrade the existing U.P. School at Mundiappally into a High School. Ext. P8 order shows that it was an order passed after hearing the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Ext. P8 order shows that it was an order passed after hearing the petitioner and the 4th respondent. It has also relied on a further report of the District Educational Officer on the basis of which the Government had come to the finding that though the distance from Mundiappally to the N.S.S. High School, Kunnamthanam is only two kilometres and to the N.S.S. High School, Kaviyoor is three kilometres, transport facilities available from Mundiappally to those places are limited, Mundiappally is a very backward area with respect to educational facilities, the two High Schools existing at the aforesaid places do not meet the educational needs of the locality, the number of students enrolled in the above two High Schools from Mundiappally is negligible and the public residing in a Poor Home conducted by the C.S I. Church at Mundiappally have to suffer for want of a High School at Mundiappally. For these reasons the Government as per Ext. P8 order held that the educational needs of the locality require the opening of a new High School at Mundiappally, and the review petition submitted by the petitioner was accordingly rejected. 4. The learned Single Judge has the following to say about Ext. P8 in Para.8 of his judgment: "File No Rt. 3322/83/G. Edn. contains the proceedings connected with the review undertaken by the Government, pursuant to Ext. P7 representation of the petitioner. It is seen that the remarks of the D E. O. were called for before taking up the matter for bearing, and that the contentions of the petitioner were duly considered in the light of available data, in making Ext. P8 order. The reliability or otherwise of the data is not for this Court to closely scrutinise, and as the Government was entitled to rely on the data supplied by its own officers, I am of the view that there is no scope for interfering with Ext. P8 in proceedings of the present kind." 5. The final list Ext. P4 was, however, quashed by the learned judge for the reasons earlier stated that there was no material before the Director in respect of the matters specified in sub-rule (1) of R.2 for inclusion of Mundiappally in Ext. P8 in proceedings of the present kind." 5. The final list Ext. P4 was, however, quashed by the learned judge for the reasons earlier stated that there was no material before the Director in respect of the matters specified in sub-rule (1) of R.2 for inclusion of Mundiappally in Ext. P1 preliminary list, there was no proper enquiry by the District Educational Officer and the Director himself had, without properly adverting to the requirements of R.2, merely forwarded the recommendation of the District Educational Officer to the Government after formally approving the preliminary list insofar as it relates to Mundiappally. The subsequent finding in Ext. P8 on fresh materials placed before the Government, according to the learned judge, will not cure the initial defect and as at the appropriate stage the basic requirements of the rule were not satisfied the upgradation of the U.P. School at Mundiappally cannot be sustained in law. We find it difficult to agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Judge. As adverted to earlier in this judgment, it is the duty and the responsibility of the Government to establish and maintain educational institutions in the State including aided schools. It is primarily for the Government to decide what are the areas where new schools are to be established or existing schools are to be upgraded. This Court will certainly interfere if there had been a violation of the procedure prescribed by the rules in the matter of arriving at a decision as to the places or localities where new schools are to be established or existing schools are to be upgraded. The entire procedure in regard to the determination of localities where new schools are to be established or existing schools are to be upgraded is contained in R.2 of Chapter V. The matters relevant are enumerated in sub-rule (1) which takes in not merely the educational needs of the locality, but also several other factors enumerated thereunder. The two objections raised by the only objector against the proposal for upgradation of the U. P. School concerned in this case as disclosed by Ext. P3 are that the educational needs of the locality do not justify the upgradation of an existing U. P School and that by such upgradation his High Schools at Kunnamthanam and Kaviyoor will be affected. P3 are that the educational needs of the locality do not justify the upgradation of an existing U. P School and that by such upgradation his High Schools at Kunnamthanam and Kaviyoor will be affected. This latter objection cannot be accepted to be relevant in considering the question of upgradation of an existing U.P. School in the locality. Whether for the reason of such upgradation there will be a reduction in strength in the schools under the educational agency of the petitioner or not will not be an overriding factor in considering the five matters enumerated in sub-rule (1) of R.2 aforesaid. The various educational agencies in the State are only those on whom the Government have conferred the privilege of running the educational institutions, the responsibility in regard to which rests in the Government itself. Certain rights are conceded under the Education Act and the Rules on the educational agency such as the power of appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff in the educational institutions and the right of management of the same. The expenses for running the institutions are wholly met by the Government. On a close scrutiny of the provisions of the Education Act and the Rules it is fairly clear that the educational agency is only an agent of the Government with certain rights conceded by the Education Act and the Rules framed thereunder and also certain rights on the minority communities guaranteed under the Constitution to establish educational institutions of its own. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Chingleput Bottlers v. M/s. Majestic Bottling Co. reported in AIR. 1984 SC. 1030 it is stated at page 1040 as follows: "32. There is authority for the proposition that an authority or body need not observe the rules of natural justice where its decision, although final, relates not to a 'right' but to a 'privilege or licence'. In a number of recent decisions, the Courts have, while extending the protection of natural justice in the former category of claims, denied such protection to the latter category. All that is emphasised in such cases is that the applications must be considered fairly. In R. v. Gaming Board for Great Britan ex parte Benaim & Khaida (1970) 2 All ER. All that is emphasised in such cases is that the applications must be considered fairly. In R. v. Gaming Board for Great Britan ex parte Benaim & Khaida (1970) 2 All ER. 528, the Court of Appeal held that in refusing a certificate for reasons concerning the character and suitability of the applicants, the Board must act fairly and obey the broad principles of natural justice." It is further stated at page 1041: "34. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971) 2 QB 175 Lord Denning said: "If a man seeks a privilege to which he has no particular claim such as an appointment to some post or other then he can be turned away without a word." The Master of Rolls went on to say that nonetheless statutory and in some cases domestic bodies must act fairly and this may involve a hearing, although it is not clear from the judgment whether the duty applies where an initial application is being considered or only where an existing privilege is being terminated." The question before the Supreme Court related to the entitlement of an applicant for a licence under R.7 of the T.N. Arrack (Manufacture) Rules, 1981, and it was in that context that the Supreme Court stated at page 1042: "40. There is nothing in the language of R.7 of the Rules to suggest that in refusing to grant the privilege, the Commr. is obliged to act 'judicially'. The order refusing a licence under R.7 is purely an administrative or executive order and is not open to appeal or revision. There is no lis between the Commissioner and the person who is refused such privilege. The power of refusal of licence unlike the power to grant is not subject to any pre-condition." Even though these observations of the Supreme Court related to the refusal of a licence applied for which was held to be only a privilege, the same principle should govern the grant of every other privilege also by the Government. The power of refusal of licence unlike the power to grant is not subject to any pre-condition." Even though these observations of the Supreme Court related to the refusal of a licence applied for which was held to be only a privilege, the same principle should govern the grant of every other privilege also by the Government. In this particular case the writ petition before this Court is not even against the rejection of an application for the grant of privilege made by the petitioner, but against the grant of a privilege by the Government to the fourth respondent and under these circumstances the area of interference in writ proceedings by this Court is very much limited is clear from the principle that can be deduced from the passages cited above. In the decision of the Supreme Court in J. M. Deasi v. Roshan Kumar reported in AIR. 1976 SC. 578 it was held that the objector to the grant of a cinema licence is not entitled to urge that his commercial interest will be affected by way of objection to the grant. It is stated at page 587: "46. Thus, in substance, the appellant's stand is that the setting up of a rival cinema house in the town will adversely affect his monopolistic commercial interest, causing pecuniary harm and loss of business from competition. Such harm or loss is not wrongful in the eye of law, because it does not result in injury to a legal right or a legally protected interest, the business competition causing it being a lawful activity. Juridically, harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria, the term injuria being here used in its true sense of an act contrary to law. The reason why the law suffers a person knowingly to inflict harm of this description on another, without holding him accountable for it, is that such harm done to an individual is a gain to society at large." For the aforesaid reasons the second ground of objection in Ext. P3 that the number of students in the High Schools run by the petitioner will be reduced is not a valid ground of objection against the grant of the privilege of upgradation of an existing U.P. School in favour of the fourth respondent. 6. P3 that the number of students in the High Schools run by the petitioner will be reduced is not a valid ground of objection against the grant of the privilege of upgradation of an existing U.P. School in favour of the fourth respondent. 6. On a persual of the records of the case and the files placed before us by the learned Additional Advocate General, we are also satisfied that the requirements of the rule had been complied with in a fair and reasonable manner. The learned Single Judge is of the view that for the reason of paucity of time after the decision of the Government communicated to the Director on 12-3-1982 to increase the number of new schools to be established for the academic year from 75 to 275. the Director did not have sufficient opportunity to reflect or consider the requirements of sub-rule (1) of R.2. The Director being the Head of the Department can well be expected to know the requirements of the various localities for new schools or for upgradation of existing schools. The two communications from the Government dated 6-2-1982 and 12-3-1982 addressed to the Director would clearly show that there had been pressing demands from all quarters for the establishment of new schools at various places in the State and such demands had been there for some time past. The learned judge refers to the Director's letter to the Government dated 25-3-1982 after the publication of the preliminary list (Ext. P1) wherein it is stated: "With the limited time available I have notified 275 places in Notification No. W4/30170/82 dated 15-3-82. The list could have been more carefully drawn up, if adequate time was available." The reference is to the preliminary list (Ext. P1) which is yet to be finalised after considering objections relating to the various places notified thereunder. It is pertinent to note as already adverted to that in respect of the proposal for upgradation of the U.P. School concerned in this case, the objection relates only to the educational need of the locality, the other objection, as already found, not being sustainable in law. The matters to be considered enumerated in sub-rule (1) take in also several other things besides the educational need of the locality. The matters to be considered enumerated in sub-rule (1) take in also several other things besides the educational need of the locality. The District Educational Officer, after the enquiry referred to in sub-rule (3), had submitted his report to the Director, the contents of which are referred to by the Director in his letter dated 23-1-1983 addressed to the Government and quoted in Para.10 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. For the purpose of convenience the same is quoted below: "H. S. Kunnamthanam and N. S. S. H S Kaviyoor are at 2 and 31/2 K. M. respectively from Mundiappally U. P. S. Standard VIII in N. S. S. H. S. Kunnamthanam is 367 with 9 divisions and H. S. Kaviyoor is 329 with 8 divisions. Only a very few pupils of Mundiappally are enrolling in Kaviyoor H. S. The upgrading may not affect N S. S. H. S. Kunnamthanam considerably, as there are other feeding schools and a portion of pupils of C. M. S. U. P. S. Mundiappally may get enrolled in N. S. S. H. S. Kunnamthanam, even if the upgrading is allowed." This discloses the existing condition of the two High Schools run by the petitioner. Those High Schools had nine and eight divisions respectively in the VIIIth Standard. It cannot be said that so much overcrowding in the schools within a distance of two or three kilometres is not a matter to be taken into consideration as falling under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of R.2. It may also fall under clause (e). Incidentally the enquiry reveals as disclosed by the findings of the District Educational Officer that the upgradation may not even affect the existing schools of the petitioner. The Director after a perusal of the report of the District Educational Officer had forwarded the records to the Government for approval with the following recommendation as is seen quoted in Para.10 of the judgment under appeal: "On the facts reported by the DEO both the High Schools at Kunnamthanam and Kaviyoor are not likely to be affected. Recommended." It was only after consideration of those materials that the authorities concerned had taken the decision to upgrade the existing school at Mundiappally. It cannot be said that there were no materials for arriving at the decision or that the materials relied on were irrelevant in considering the question. Recommended." It was only after consideration of those materials that the authorities concerned had taken the decision to upgrade the existing school at Mundiappally. It cannot be said that there were no materials for arriving at the decision or that the materials relied on were irrelevant in considering the question. The mere fact that at the initial stage the Director did not have sufficient time to choose the 275 places where new schools are to be established does not, on the facts disclosed, appear to affect the decision to upgrade the existing U.P. School at Mundiappally. It is also brought to our notice that the U. P. School had been functioning from 1949 onwards 7. The Government had also a second look into the matter when it entertained the petitioner's applications for review (Exts. P5 and P7). Further reports were called for and valid reasons are given to affirm its earlier decision to upgrade the U.P. School at Mundiappally. There are additional reasons given for affirmation of the earlier decision and those additional reasons are also relevant under sub-rule (1) of R.2. There is nothing in the Rules to preclude the Government on whom lies the responsibility of establishing educational institutions in the State from taking matter's brought to its notice for consideration at the time when it reconsiders the question tinder sub-rule (5) of R.2. The sub-rule empowers the Government to affirm, alter or modify its earlier decision. The learned judge has found no defect in Ext. P8, and, if there is no ground made out to quash the decision in Ext. P8, there was also no ground, according to us, to interfere with the grant of the privilege of upgrading the existing UP. School of the 4th respondent into a High School. 8. We need only refer to Para.16 of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Purushothaman v. State of Kerala reported in 1983 KLT. 527 to show that the Government had been sufficiently cautioned against the proliferation of applications for the grant of new schools for the reasons adverted to in Para.15 of the judgment. But in a case where we are satisfied that the requirements of the rule as presently existing had been complied with, this Court will have no reason to interfere with the decision of the Government in the matter of the grant of the privilege. 9. But in a case where we are satisfied that the requirements of the rule as presently existing had been complied with, this Court will have no reason to interfere with the decision of the Government in the matter of the grant of the privilege. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the grant of the privilege to the fourth respondent is vitiated by mala fides. There is no clear allegation of mala fides except the general allegations contained in Para.5 of the Original Petition. Such allegations as are contained in Para.5 are grossly insufficient to find mala fides. 10. It was for the reason of the averments contained in Para.5 of the O.P. that the learned Single Judge called for the files relating to the grant and examined the same. There is, however, no finding of mala fides in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We also do not find any material to find mala fides in spite of the fact that two more files containing the Government letters dated 6-2-1982 and 12-3-1982 were also produced by the learned Additional Advocate General for our perusal. 11. The result therefore is, we allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed. Learned counsel for the first respondent in the appeal (the petitioner in the O.P.) has made an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court immediately after pronouncement of judgment by us. We do not see that the case involves any substantial question of law of general importance that needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The prayer for leave is therefore rejected. Issue carbon copies on usual terms.