JUDGMENT This petition is by an educational institution running convent english medium school in the name of St. Mary's Convent English Medium High School, Narsinghpur. The institution made an application in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule-32 and 33 of the M.P. Education Code for grant of a permission to open new classes in standard III to V and VI. By the impugned communication (Annexure-P/34) of the year 1989, the permission sought to open the above new classes has been turned down stating that there is no justification to grant such permission. Leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned communication of refusal is per se arbitrary as it contains no reason and the same, therefore, deserves to be quashed with direction to the educational authorities of the State to grant necessary permission. Learned counsel appearing for the State in his reply invited attention of this Court to the averments made in this return and to the provisions of Education Code. The communication refusing permission to open new classes contains no reasons for rejection of such permission, but, reasons have been stated in the return which appear relevant and reasonable. The provisions or rules contained in the Education Code are not statutory in character. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent/State that it was brought to their notice that criminal cases were pending against the Manager of the School for tampering the dates of birth of the students recorded in the School Register. The Collector, Narsinghpur had also submitted an adverse report regarding the unsatisfactory functioning of the School and it is several short coming with regard to the funds and premises. On behalf of the State, it is contended that the permission to open new classes has been refused on relevant and cogent grounds. By reading the provisions contained in sub-rule-2 of rule-33 of the Education Code, it is submitted on behalf of the State that the permission to open only one new class in each academic year could have been granted and no permission could be granted to open more than one class in one academic year. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds no ground to quash the impugned communication, by which, permission to open new classes has been refused to the petitioner-institution. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds no ground to quash the impugned communication, by which, permission to open new classes has been refused to the petitioner-institution. As stated above the impugned communication does not contain reasons for rejection of permission, but, the reasons have been stated in the return, which cannot be said to be irrelevant. The power conferred by rule-33 of the Education Code to the concerned authorities of the Education Department cannot be held to have been exercised on irrelevant ground. It is not denied that after the impugned communication several new developments have taken place. The alleged criminal cases pending against the Manager and the adverse report of the Collector were events of the past and may no longer come in the way of the institution in getting the due sanction for permission. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's fresh application, if made, for permission for opening new classes on its own merits. Since the next academic session would begin in June 95, it is directed that if an application for permission to open new classes in accordance with the rule-32 and 33 of the Education Code is made by the petitioner within a period of one month from today, the respondents shall duly consider the same on merits and pass final order on it well before the commencement of the next academic session in June 1995. With the above directions the petition stands disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.