JUDGMENT - BATTA R.K., J.:---These petitions gave rise to common questions and, as such, it is proposed to dispose of the same by common Judgment. The petitioners are three different Schools which are in existence for long and has classes upto Xth Standard. The petitioners started High Secondary stage in the existing Schools in June, 1988 after due permission from the Directorate of Education. Respondent No. 2 Directorate of Education released grants in favour of the petitioners vide Orders dated 10-6-1988, 29-7-1988, 29-9-1988 and 15-3-1989. Subsequently, the respondents sought to recover the said grants from the petitioners on the ground that they are not entitled to the said grants during the first year of the start of Higher Secondary stage in the Schools. The grants which were released to the petitioners are as under: Name of the school Grants released 1. Saraswat Vidhyalaya Purshottam Walawalkar High School of Arts, Science and Commerce, Khorlim, Mapusa, Goa. Rs. 4,10,000=00 2. Shree Damodar Higher Secondary School of Science of Matha-gramastha Hindu Sabha, Margao. Rs. 4,90,000=00 3. Shree Navdurga Higher Secondary School of Arts and Commerce, Madkal. Rs. 3,00,000=00 Out of the total grant of Rs. 4,10,000/- to the petitioner School in Writ Petition 460/93, Rs. 60,000/- was given as grant for acquiring science equipments. From the total grant of Rs. 4,10,000/-, the respondents had already recovered a sum of Rs. 86,913/- from the petitioner school in Writ Petition 460/93, prior to filing of the writ petition. Likewise, in the case of the petitioner school in writ petition 559/93, out of the total grant of Rs. 4,90,000/-, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was grant for acquiring Science equipments. In Writ Petition 559/93, the petitioner School had, in fact, offered for the recovery of the said grants by way of 12 annual instalments. On filing of the writ petitions, further recoveries from the petitioners were stayed. These recoveries which are sought to be made by the respondents of the aforesaid grants to the petitioners Schools, are now sought to be challenged in these petitions. 2. On filing of the writ petitions, further recoveries from the petitioners were stayed. These recoveries which are sought to be made by the respondents of the aforesaid grants to the petitioners Schools, are now sought to be challenged in these petitions. 2. Learned Advocate Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, argued on behalf of the petitioners are took us through various provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules".) He drew our attention to section 7 of the said Act which provides for aid to recognised Schools. He then took us through Chapter VI of the said Rules which deals with Grant-in-Aid. Rule 47 of the said Rules provides that every aided school shall, so long as it fulfils the conditions for receiving aid, continue, subject to the provisions of these rules to receive such aid. Rule 52 provides for conditions for Grant-in-Aid and it is specifically pointed out by learned Advocate Shri Nadkarni that the said Rule does not restrict the release of grant even during the first year of introduction of additional stage in the existing Schools as one of the conditions for grant-in-aid. Rule 61 deals with categories of aid, which includes maintenance grant, equipment grant, building grant and such other grants as may be sanctioned by Government from time to time. Rule 62 deals with maintenance grants and, in fact, the controversy in these petitions revolves around the interpretation to be put on Rule 62 of the said Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 62 reads as under:- "62. Maintenance Grants.-Subject to funds being available all the Secondary Schools including Middle Schools and Higher Secondary Schools, Primary Training Institutions and Night Secondary Schools recognised in the previous official year are eligible for maintenance grants on the basis of their total admitted expenditure of pervious year, as per the pattern of assistance approved by Government......" 3. Maintenance Grants.-Subject to funds being available all the Secondary Schools including Middle Schools and Higher Secondary Schools, Primary Training Institutions and Night Secondary Schools recognised in the previous official year are eligible for maintenance grants on the basis of their total admitted expenditure of pervious year, as per the pattern of assistance approved by Government......" 3. According to learned Advocate Shri Nadkarni, Rule 62 cannot be interpreted to suggest that no maintenance grant is permissible in the first year of start of any stage of the School since the maintenance grant to be sanctioned is based on the total admitted expenditure of the previous year, which would include the expenditure incurred in respect of the existing school even though at that time additional stage for which grant is sought was not in existence. According to him, the grant is to be given on the pattern of assistance approved by the Government and there are no restrictions either under the said Act or under the said Rules that no maintenance grant is permissible during the first year of the start of the school/start of additional stage. He has further pointed out that part of the grant to the petitioner school in Writ Petition No. 460/93 and Writ Petition No. 559/93 relates to acquiring of scientific equipments which, according to Rule 63, is payable even during the first year on the basis of the actual expenditure incurred by the school. On the other hand, it is canvassed by learned Government Advocate Shri Bharne in Writ Petitions 460/93 and 559/93 and learned Government Advocate Shri A.P. Lawande in Writ Petition 575/93 that Rule 62 is crystal clear and the new schools or the schools in which additional stage is added, are not entitled to maintenance grants during the first year since the basis on which maintenance grant has to be paid is the previous official year`s expenditure for the said purpose. They have pointed out that even though the petitioners schools and some other schools were not entitled to release of grants, grants were released and it was understood by the schools that the said grants would be recoverable. They had candidly conceded that in the years releasing grants, it was neither specified that the grant was being issued as a special case nor that it would be liable to recovery subsequently. They had candidly conceded that in the years releasing grants, it was neither specified that the grant was being issued as a special case nor that it would be liable to recovery subsequently. It is pointed out that the petitioner schools in Writ Petition 559/93 had agreed that the grant which was released may be recovered in 12 annual instalments. According to the learned Government Advocates since there is no provision for releasing maintenance grant during the first year, it is but natural that if any grant is made as a special case or otherwise, it is liable to recovery from the said Schools. 4. The Act and the Rules provide for grant-in-aid to aided Schools and for that purpose conditions are prescribed for release of grants under Rule 52 of the said Rules. The grants are of four types, namely maintenance grant, equipment grant, building grant and such other grants as may be sanctioned by Government from time to time. Rule 62 provides for maintenance grants to the recognised schools on the basis of pervious official year`s expenditure. This means that the maintenance grants which is to be granted to the aided schools under Rule 62 is based upon the expenditure incurred by the schools in the previous official year. This would thus rule out the possibility of release of any grant during the first year of the school/first year of the additional stage introduced in the School. Accordingly, we are of the view that for the first year, the Schools would not be entitled to maintenance grants and any maintenance grant released by the Government would be subject to recovery. However, the case of equipment grants is on a different footing, since the equipment grant in terms of Rule 63 has to be paid on the total expenditure actually incurred in the purchase of approved articles of such specifications as may be laid down by the Director and this annual grant shall not be less than two-third of the total expenditure actually incurred as aforesaid. In Writ Petition 460/93, the equipment grant is stated to be Rs. 60,000/- and in Writ Petition 559/93, the said equipment grant is stated to be Rs. 40,000/-. This grant would not be subject to recovery provided actual expenditure to the extent of grant had been incurred by the said petitioners during the first year of the start of additional stage. 60,000/- and in Writ Petition 559/93, the said equipment grant is stated to be Rs. 40,000/-. This grant would not be subject to recovery provided actual expenditure to the extent of grant had been incurred by the said petitioners during the first year of the start of additional stage. Learned Government Advocate Shri Bharne informs that the Director of Education has verified and the equipment grant was, in fact, spent by the said petitioners during the first year of the start of additional stage in the School. Therefore, the said equipment grant shall not be subject to recovery at all. 5. Learned Advocate Shri Nadkarni, after placing reliance on a Judgment of Division Bench of the Court in (The New English High School, Santa-Cruz, Goa and another v. The Director of Education and others)1, Special Civil Application (Writ Petition) No. 128/B of 1981, has urged before us that the grant which was paid almost 10 years ago should not be ordered to be recovered at this stage. In this respect, it is pointed out by the learned Government Advocates that even though the recovery notices were given within a year of the release of the grants, the petitioners had approached this Court only in the year 1993 after which the recovery was stayed and it would be inequitable if recovery is not allowed keeping in view the large grants paid by the Government amounting to Rs. 47,41,190/- which grant includes the grants released in favour of the petitioners and 16 other schools. In view of the fact that we have come to the conclusion that during the first year no maintenance grants are permissible, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that no recovery of the same be made. The Division Bench ruling upon which reliance is placed does not lay down any proposition of law as such that grants once released cannot be recovered, but the decision in the said case is based upon the facts and circumstances therein. The decision in the said case rested on circulars but in the petitions before us the grants are regulated by the Act and Rules. 6. The decision in the said case rested on circulars but in the petitions before us the grants are regulated by the Act and Rules. 6. The learned Government Advocates are fair enough to suggest that the grants may not be ordered to be recovered in lump sum, but the same be ordered to be recovered from the maintenance grant in appropriate number of annual instalments, which may be fixed as 12 annual instalments as prayed for by one of the petitioners in Writ Petition 559/1993. Taking into consideration the amount of grant released in favour of the petitioners and the annual maintenance grants to which the petitioners Schools are entitled, we find it appropriate that the recovery of maintenance grant from the petitioners Schools be made in fifteen equal annual instalments from the maintenance grants released to the petitioners every year. The learned Government Advocates have made statement that the recoveries from the other 16 Schools to whom the grants released shall also be likewise made. The recovery shall commence from January, 1999. 7. In view of the above, we pass the following order : In case of the petitioner School in Writ Petition 460/93, out of the total grant of Rs. 4,10,000/- Rs. 60,000/- is the grant for equipments which is held to be not recoverable, which means that the recovery which can be effected from the said petitioner would be Rs. 3,50,000/-. Out of which Rs. 86,913/- has already been recovered. Thus, the recovery from the petitioner School in Writ Petition 460/93 shall be restricted to Rs. 2,63,087/- in 15 equal annual instalments. In case of the petitioner school in Writ Petition 559/1993, the equipment grant of Rs. 40,000/- is held to be not recoverable, which means that an amount of Rs 4,50,000/- would be subject to recovery in 15 equal annual instalments. In case of the petitioner school in Writ Petition 575/1993, the total amount of recovery to be effected, shall be Rs. 3,00,000/- in 15 equal annual instalments. No interest shall be payable on the grants which were made to them initially. The annual instalments shall be adjusted out of the annual maintenance grants released to the petitioners schools from January, 1999. The writ petitions are, thus, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. The interim orders staying the recovery in the writ petitions are hereby vacated. The annual instalments shall be adjusted out of the annual maintenance grants released to the petitioners schools from January, 1999. The writ petitions are, thus, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. The interim orders staying the recovery in the writ petitions are hereby vacated. Writ petition partly allowed. -----