BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner applied for permission to start a Kannada Medium High School on 9-12-1987. Despite repeated representations, no decision was taken by the Competent Authority. For the second time, on 26-12-1988, the petitioner preferred another application for the same purpose. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is sign of response from the Competent Authority despite the passage of an inordinate length of time and the petitioner is put to unnecessary loss of investment though it has deposited the required money for consideration of its application. ( 2 ) IT is seen in a number of cases that the processing, consideration and disposal of applications for grant of permission to a number of Educational Institutions similarly situated has not been taken for considerably long periods without any justification. Inordinate delay has become the order of the day and the authorities seem to be immune to the needs of the community. Such an attitude is not only injurious but also damaging to educational activity of private Institutions which have come forward to provide educational facilities for school going students. Education ought to receive top priority at least by the Department concerned in public interest. I do not see any justification whatever in this abnormal delay in disposing of the application of the petitioner after due consideration on merits. In this case, it Is Indeed very strange to notice that not even an enforcement or a reply is issued by the concerned authority that the matter is under consideration or that more particulars are required from the petitioner. This is another example of administrative inertia. ( 3 ) FOR the above reasons, I allow this Writ Petition and direct respondent-2 who is the commissioner of Public Instructions herein to consider the applications of the petitioner dated 9-12-1987 and 26-12-1988 and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the direction is not complied with before the expiry of the stipulated period, it is open to the petitioner to move this Court for appropriate action. ( 4 ) IN the ordinary course, I would have been inclined to award costs to the petitioner. But since the circumstances in which the abnormal delay is entailed is not made clear, I do not choose to award costs.