BHANWAR SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw recognition of the opposite party No. 4 unless and until he changes the name of his school. Prayer for awarding damages and suitable punishment by way of appropriate direction has also been pressed into service. ( 2 ) LUCKNOW Public School, Jail Road. Anand Nagar Lucknow is running under the aegis of the registered society bharti Shiksha Samiti, Jail Road. Lucknow. The said society was also running its school under the name and style of Bharti Montessori School, but following a dispute among the members of the Committee of Management, its name was changed to Lucknow Public school, Jail Road, Anand Nagar and this new name was duly approved by the District Basic shiksha Adhikari vide his letter dated 6. 7. 1985. The said school was accorded permanent recognition in the year 1987. It is alleged further that by efflux of time, the petitioner school earned name and fame in the field of education. Its students secured meritorious positions in the high Court examinations being held every year. Taking advantage of the goodwill the petitioner school had gained in the past, the opposite party No. 4 Sri C. P. Singh also established a school using the same name as that of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved of his conduct, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Pelition No. 593 (M/s) of 1997 and prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw the recognition of opposite party No. 1. The Court issued and order on 1. 5. 2000 and directed the concerned authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, the District Inspector of Schools. Lucknow asked the opposite party No. 4 to change the name of his school but refused to withdraw recognition to run the school. As a matter of fact, the fraudulent act of opposite party No. 4 in using the petitioners name with a view to mislead the public was enough for the District Inspector of Schools to withdraw the recognition but he did not do so probably in the public interest. As a matter of fact, the fraudulent act of opposite party No. 4 in using the petitioners name with a view to mislead the public was enough for the District Inspector of Schools to withdraw the recognition but he did not do so probably in the public interest. However, the opposite party No. 4 failed to comply with the direction issued by the District Inspector of Schools. Lucknow and he is still running his school under the same name and style as that of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner is facing irreparable loss and injury to his reputation. Even many suppliers of essential goods come across their harassment when they supply their goods, on being booked by the petitioner, to the opposite party No. 4 but the latter refuses to make payment. In these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed praying for the reliefs as indicated earlier. ( 3 ) THE opposite party No. 4 filed his counter-affidavit and asserted that the petitioner Lucknow public School, Jail Road, Anand Nagar. Lucknow is not a juristic person and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. As a matter of fact, Bharti Shiksha Samtti, the registered society alone was the competent person to have filed a writ petition but the said society has not come forward. However, since this Court has already rejected the petitioners plea for a writ of mandamus to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to withdraw recognition by passing orders dated 1. 5. 2000 in Writ Petition No. 593 (M/s) of 1997, this writ petition is not maintainable in view of rule 7, Chapter 22 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. Further, the claim for damages is also not sustainable as for that relief, a person cannot invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rebutting the petitioners claim regarding use of the schools name. Sri C. P. Singh asserted that the Lucknow Public School, Sector D. Lucknow development Authority Colony was established as a branch of Lucknow Public School, Anand nagar, Jail Road, in the year 1988 by Bharti Shiksha Samiti itself which runs and manages the petitioner school. However, in the year 1990. Avadh Educational Society was constituted and registered. Bharti Shiksha Samiti passed a resolution on 26. 7. However, in the year 1990. Avadh Educational Society was constituted and registered. Bharti Shiksha Samiti passed a resolution on 26. 7. 1991 and thereby authorised Avadh educational Society to run the branch of the school in L. D. A. Colony, Kanpur Road. By another resolution of February 6. 1994 Bharti Shiksha Samiti transferred such estates of the society to avadh Educational Society, which were lying with the latter. The Lucknow Public School Sector d, L. D. A. Colony, Kanpur Road was granted recognition as a High School by the Board of High school and Intermediate Education on 20. 6. 1992 while the petitioner school was recognised by the aforesaid Board vide its letter of September 30, 1992, i. e. . more than three months after. This fact of prior recognition having been granted to the Kanpur Road School will have an edge over the issue of right for retention of the schools name. There is no violation or breach of the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. There is no other rule or law, which prohibits running of more than one school by the same name. A number of schools are running in the State with the same name and style. There are as many as five schools being run in the name of lucknow Public School, Lucknow Public School, A Block, Rajajipuram and Lucknow Public school, B Block, Rajajipuram are being run by the society, namely, Lucknow Public Educational society and Sri S. P. Singh, who is the Manager of the petitioner school. Is the Secretary of the said society. Lucknow Public School, Sector 1. L. D. A. Colony, Kanpur Road is being managed by Vijeta Educational Society and it is affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education. The order dated 18. 8. 2000 of the District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow was issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the authorities of Lucknow Public School, Sector D. Kanpur road and, therefore, the said order is bad in law. The answering opposite party has also moved for withdrawal cancellation of the said illegal order. In view of these averments, the answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. ( 4 ) AS both the parties have exchanged their affidavits, counter and rejoinder affidavits, learned counsel appearing for them requested that the petition itself may be finally disposed of. In view of these averments, the answering opposite party prayed for dismissal of this writ petition. ( 4 ) AS both the parties have exchanged their affidavits, counter and rejoinder affidavits, learned counsel appearing for them requested that the petition itself may be finally disposed of. It is thus in view of this agreement of the learned counsel for both the parties that this writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage. ( 5 ) THE writ petition has been filed mainly on the grounds that the opposite parly No. 4 is illegally running Kanpur Road Lucknow Public School with a view to derive advantage of the goodwill of the petitioner school and as such he is misusing the name of the petitioner. He should, therefore, be asked to obey the order of the opposite party No. 3 and change the name of his school. In case of his disobedience, recognition granted to his school deserves to be cancelled. ( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. ( 7 ) IT is significant to note that the petitioner has not been able to point out any provision of law or rules of the Educational Act or the rules framed thereunder in accordance with which the opposite party No. 4 can be asked to change the name of his school. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length but could not point out any provision under which a direction can be issued to opposite party No. 4 to comply with the order of the District Inspector of Schools to change the name of the school. Obviously such a direction is not justified, particularly when it is not invested with any sanctity of law or rules. The Avadh Educational Society is a duly registered society under the Societies Registration Act and since running of school at Kanpur road is not in violation of the provisions of the said Act, the petitioner has no locus standi to have any command issued to opposite party No. 4. ( 8 ) THE Court has then to scrutinise the petitioners contention that use of name and style of lucknow Public School by opposite party No. 4 is unreasonable, as the latter has misused the goodwill of the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE Court has then to scrutinise the petitioners contention that use of name and style of lucknow Public School by opposite party No. 4 is unreasonable, as the latter has misused the goodwill of the petitioner. With a view to look into the merit of this argument, reference has to be made to the old relationship between the Management Committees of the two institutions. In this context, the history of the institutions is to be traced. A perusal of Lucknow Development authoritys letter, Annexure CA-3 would reveal that the land of the Kanpur Road. Lucknow public School was allotted in the name of the institution which then was being run by Bharti shiksha Samiti. On 26. 7. 1991, the matter regarding functioning of the Lucknow Public School, kanpur Road was discussed in the meeting of the Management Committee of Bharti Shiksha samiti and it was resolved that the Avadh Educational Society. Lucknow, a newly constituted samiti at that juncture of time, should be allowed to run another branch of the Lucknow Public school on the land situated on Kanpur Road. After serious consideration of the aims and objects of both the societies being the same. The Avadh Educational Society was allowed to run the lucknow Public School on Kanpur Road land. In another meeting held on 6. 2. 1994. the management Committee of Bharti Shiksha Samiti resolved that the entire estates in possession of the Avadh Educational Society at Kanpur Road, Lucknow Public School be transferred to the said society and the estates included buses, jeeps, movable and immovable properties with liabilities of loan, etc. It is very important to mention that both the letters, Annexures CA-5 and ca-6 were written by none else than Sri S. P. Singh, who is the Manager of Jail Road, Lucknow public School. These letters and the resolution of Bharti Shiksha Samiti would certainly operate as an estoppel against the petitioner for the simple reason that the opposite party No. 4 derived power of creating, establishing and running Lucknow Public School, Kanpur Road from the authority of Bharti Shiksha Samiti and its resolutions. It was a sort of transition of power from the main stem to the branches. How then Bharti Shiksha Samiti, its Management or the Manager of the Lucknow Public School, Jail Road. Anand Nagar can resile from their commitments vis-a-vis the Kanpur Road, Lucknow Public School. It was a sort of transition of power from the main stem to the branches. How then Bharti Shiksha Samiti, its Management or the Manager of the Lucknow Public School, Jail Road. Anand Nagar can resile from their commitments vis-a-vis the Kanpur Road, Lucknow Public School. The petitioner has not been able to rebut these two letters and the resolutions referred to above. The Court is, therefore, inclined to hold that the source of power for the opposite parties to run Lucknow Public School under the aegis of Avadh Educational Society at L. D. A. Colony, Kanpur Road. Lucknow was the petitioners educational society Bharti Shiksha Samiti. Therefore, under no circumstances and by no stretch of reasoning, the petitioner can be allowed to reiterate its demand for a direction to opposite party No. 4 to change the name of his school. ( 9 ) MOREOVER, it is noteworthy that the Lucknow Public School, L. D. A. Colony. Kanpur Road was granted recognition as a High School by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education on 20. 6. 1992 while the petitioner school was given this kind of recognition on 30. 9. 1992, i. e. , more than three months later. These facts are duly established by letters Annexure CA-7 and ca-9. In view of this prior recognition of the Lucknow Public School, Kanpur Road as a High school, the petitioners demand for change of its name is unreasonable and uncalled for. !t is also relevant to mention that there being no prohibition for running of more than one school in the same name a number of schools are running in the State with the same name and style. In lucknow itself, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 4. there are three colleges with the name of New Public Inter College, two colleges with the name of maharaja Agrasen College, two Inter Colleges with the name of Gandhi Vidyalaya Inter College and besides many other, there are five schools with the name and style of Lucknow Public school, Sri S. P. Singh, who has filed this writ petition, is himself running two more schools by the name of Lucknow Public School. A Block, Rajajipuram and Lucknow Public School, B block, Rajajipuram under the aegis of Lucknow Public Educational Society. A Block, Rajajipuram and Lucknow Public School, B block, Rajajipuram under the aegis of Lucknow Public Educational Society. In view of this situation, if he asks the opposite party No. 4 to change the name of his school, then he should himself initiate it by changing the names of Lucknow Public School, A Block, Rajajipuram and lucknow Public School, B Block, Rajajipuram. Yet one more school with the same name of lucknow Public School. Sector 1. L. D. A. Colony, Kanpur Road is being run and governed by vijeta Educational Society, as is evident from Annexure CA-13. Therefore, there is no legal restriction upon running of more schools than one with the same name. !n view of this settled position, the order dated 18. 8. 2000 passed by the District Inspector of Schools directing the opposite party No. 4 to change the name of his school is uncalled for and since it does not have any legal sanctity, it cannot be approved of. An order, which is contrary to the rights of the citizens and has no legal value, can conveniently be ignored, particularly when it has been passed without an opportunity of hearing being afforded. As a matter of fact, such an order is void ab initio. ( 10 ) THE opposite party No. 4 is running his school from the year 1988 and there has been no complaint against him regarding misuse of his position. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to ask him to change the name of his school, particularly when he himself and his Lucknow Public school, Kanpur Road too have acquired their own reputation and goodwill during all these 12-13 years. The District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow has rightly taken a decision refusing the petitioners request to derecognlse the Lucknow Public School of Kanpur Road, nor there was any cogent reason to have taken such a decision at the behest of the petitioner. Even the government under Section 9 (4) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act cannot make such a decision unless of course it frames regulations laying down the mandatory terms that there will be no two institutions by one name. Even the government under Section 9 (4) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act cannot make such a decision unless of course it frames regulations laying down the mandatory terms that there will be no two institutions by one name. ( 11 ) AS regards the maintainability of the writ petition, it may be observed that since the opposite party No. 3 acted in compliance of the Courts orders passed in Writ Petition No. 593 (M/s) of 1997 and took a decision, of course wrongly, the petitioner could approach the Court for further redressal of his grievance, but as has been observed earlier in detail, the principle of estoppel and acquiescence comes in his way as a legal impediment and accordingly it may be held that he has no locus standi to plead for derecognltion of opposite party No. 4. ( 12 ) IN view of the discussions held above, I am of the view that this writ petition being devoid of merit fails. Accordingly it is dismissed with costs. .