H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure-C, the impugned order dated 8th august, 1989 passed by the first respondent as per Endorsement no. ED 303 PGC 89. The petitioner has further prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents in the nature of writ of mandamus to grant permission to the petitioner to run the english Medium School. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel has invited my attention to Annexure-C of the writ petition which is dated 8-8-1989. This endorsement has been issued and passed after the order of this court dated 20-4-1989 in Writ Petition No. 5734 of 1989, whereby this Court had directed the State Government to consider the petitioner's request for grant of permission to run the English Medium School concerned and to accord permission from the academic year 1987-88, if the petitioner has satisfied all the conditions in the Grant-in-Aid Code Rules to start the school. In the order it is mentioned that Commissioner of Public instructions was called upon to inquire and report in the matter and the Commissioner of Public Instructions filed his report. It is not mentioned what is the date of the report. On the basis of that report, the Under Secretary to Government, Education department mentions that the petitioner is running the English medium School unauthorisedly from the academic year 1985-86. It was also reported that, at that time there were primary classes from 1st Standard to 5th Standard and the total strength of students from all the 5 classes was only 32 and as per Rule 12 of the Grant-in-Aid Code the minimum strength of students in each class should have been 30. It is on this ground that there is no students strength in the school as prescribed in Rule 12 request for grant of permission to run the school has been rejected. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that firstly no report had been submitted subsequent to the writ petition. But, later he withdrew this contention, when I invited his attention to the allegations made in the writ petition which purport to show that report had been made subsequently as admitted by the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that firstly no report had been submitted subsequent to the writ petition. But, later he withdrew this contention, when I invited his attention to the allegations made in the writ petition which purport to show that report had been made subsequently as admitted by the petitioner. A reading of the underquoted lines of para 5 of writ petition makes clear that in some way or other it has been admitted or assumed that the report was subsequently submitted. "thereafter, the 2nd respondent appears to have sent a false report to the 1st respondent to the effect that there are no children belonging to the categories specified in rule 12 of the Grant-in-Aid Code to the considerable extent to open the English Medium School". From this, it appears that the petitioner in his petition has not challenged the factum of submitting the report by the second respondent after the decision of the Hon'ble Court. The. petitioner in the writ petition has further stated very clearly and which allegations appear to have been sworn on affidavit based on personal knowledge, which reads as under :"it is submitted that the 2nd respondent sent his report without holding any enquiry and without even visiting the school". This allegation is an allegation of fact. This allegation has been made on affidavit by personal knowledge. When this allegation has been made on affidavit, the allegation required to be controverted by the second respondent or by the respondents by counter-affidavit. Neither the second respondent or the first respondent filed any counter-affidavit controverting this allegation. ( 4 ) IT is well-settled principle of law as laid down in many cases by the Supreme Court including in the case of Smt. Naseem Bano v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , to the effect that if averments are made in the writ petition on affidavit and application for grant of permission expeditiously after following the due process of law and after obtaining the necessary enquiry report. 7. The writ petition is thus allowed in part, in the sense that order as per Annexure-C is quashed. But, relief that the Court should direct that permission should be granted, cannot be granted by this Court. 7. The writ petition is thus allowed in part, in the sense that order as per Annexure-C is quashed. But, relief that the Court should direct that permission should be granted, cannot be granted by this Court. The Court only directs the concerned authorities, i. e. , the respondents to consider the application and the matter and dispose of it expeditiously, within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of the order, in accordance with law and if petitioner fulfills and satisfied the necessary conditions for grant of permission to start the English medium Primary School as prayed the respondents may issue the necessary order according to law. 8. The learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. L. Y. Premavathi, is permitted to file her memo of appearance. --- *** --- .