ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. Occasions do arise in certain cases where the litigants try to take advantage of certain situations by seeking withdrawal of the application which they have moved seeking certain reliefs. But when the attempt is quite adroit and the intention is not sanguine and the effort is made to frustrate the cause of justice and to have an advantage because of withdrawal, the Courts are under an obligation not to grant permission to withdraw. A litigant cannot visit the Court as if it is a laboratory. He cannot endeavour to play a game of Chess. He cannot be permitted to box the compass. The purpose of saying so is that when the case was called the learned counsel for the petitioner stood up and sought permission seeking withdrawal of the case but as the factual matrix exposits a different scenario altogether which requires adjudication the sacrosanctity of law has to be saved. In that backdrop, this Court thought it apposite not to grant leave to withdraw the writ petition. The pristine purity of law has to be maintained and no one should be allowed to spoil the alter of the temple. Hence, the matter was taken up and heard on merits. 2. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of impugned order dated 2-3-2001, Annexure-P-1, and further to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1, Secretary, Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"), to conduct a supplementary examination in the month of August, 2001. There is a further prayer to issue a direction to the respondent No. 1, the Board, to allow the students of the petitioner's school to appear as regular candidates. 3. The facts as have been depicted in the writ petition are that the petitioner, Anant Prasad Pandey, is running a school in the name of Seva Dal Higher Secondary School Akauria. The said school is run by a Society which has been registered under the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The said school has been running since 5th July, 1989 and number of students have taken admission in the said institution and prosecuting their studies. The said school is run by a Society which has been registered under the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The said school has been running since 5th July, 1989 and number of students have taken admission in the said institution and prosecuting their studies. It has been averred that in the year 2001 the petitioner had submitted an application to the Board for the extension of recognition and the Board had granted recognition to the said institution for the year 2001 and a code was allotted to it. The recognition certificate and the allotment code have been brought on record as Annexure-P-3. According to the writ petitioner, as per the instructions and the resolution of the Board the petitioner had given admission to 350 students in the month of July, 2000. They were regularly prosecuting their studies from July, 2000 till the month of February, 2001. The students had deposited the examination fees and roll numbers had also been issued to them and they had appeared in the practical examination also from the said school as regular candidates. Copy of the report of the practical examination has been brought on record as Annexure-P-4. The petitioner had also deposited the requisite fee which was prescribed by the Board. It has been putforth that a list of 350 students who had taken admission in the institution was forwarded to the Board vide Annexure-P-7 as regular candidates and accordingly roll numbers were allotted. While the matter stood thus, it has been alleged, that the Board sent a letter dated 3-3-2001 to the petitioner indicating that 299 students of the school were not regular candidates because their names had not been mentioned in the admission list. Copy of the letter sent by the Board has been brought on record as Annexure-P-8. 4. It is averred in the writ petition that 350 students had already taken admission in the month of July, 2000 and the list of the same had been sent to the Board in accordance with the rules in vogue and when the Board had communicated the roll numbers for the purpose of practical examination this question was not raised and as students had appeared in the practical examination in the capacity of regular candidates the Board at the last moment had communicated that the students of the petitioner's school may appear as private candidates. It has been setforth that only 51 students were allowed to appear as regular candidates. It is urged in the petition that the Board had fixed the centre of the petitioner's school at the Government Middle School, Akauriya, District Rewa and acted without affording any opportunity to the petitioner or the students who had taken admission. The action of the Board had been criticised as illegal, erroneous, mala fide and bad in law. It has been put forth that the centre in respect of the petitioner's school was fixed 100 kms. away which is violative of instructions of the Board. It has been pleaded that the 51 students were permitted to appear as regular candidates from the aforesaid centre and the rest of students were permitted to appear as private candidates from the Government Higher Secondary School, Mantant. It has been urged in the grounds that without justification the Board has asked the 299 students to appear as private candidates and the said action is absolutely mala fide and arbitrary. With these averments reliefs have been sought for as has been indicated hereinabove. 5. A preliminary objection was filed by the Board with regard to the interim relief prayed in the petition. Therein it has been stated that the school was granted conditional recognition for the year 2001 vide Annexure-P-3 with the specific direction that the school should enrol in Class Xth such students who had passed Class IX from their school as well as the students those who had failed in Class Xth and limit the number of Admissions in the Class Xth to appear in High School Examination but ignoring the condition of recognition of and the direction contained therein the petitioner-school sent a list of 500 students which was received by the Board on 21-8-2000. It has been pleaded that the Board had given necessary guidance and directions to the schools to be strictly adhered to but the institution of the petitioner gave the instructions complete a go by and sent a list of 500 students and the said names were sent in contravention of the guidelines. It has been put forth that the petitioner deposited requisite fees with the Board for 500 students for supply of examination forms. The Board supplied the required 500 forms on 2-11-2000 along with the specific instructions/directions. The said document has been brought on record as Annexure-R-II. It has been put forth that the petitioner deposited requisite fees with the Board for 500 students for supply of examination forms. The Board supplied the required 500 forms on 2-11-2000 along with the specific instructions/directions. The said document has been brought on record as Annexure-R-II. The petitioner overlooking the instructions and directions submitted only 350 filled up forms to the Board out of 500 forms sent by the Board. The names of 51 students were found in the list of 500 which was students sent earlier by the petitioner-school. Remaining 299 names did not find figure in the list earlier sent by the school. As the conduct of the petitioner-school created a sense of doubt and suspicion the Board formed a Special Committee to conduct an enquiry of the petitioner's school as well as 27 other schools in Rewa Division. The Special Committee which was constituted was not permitted to proceed with the enquiry by the interested parties as the interested parties created impediment. Therefore, the said Committee submitted an incomplete report and later on 28 schools including the petitioner's school were called at Bhopal and the enquiry was completed. After the detailed investigation and enquiry the Board in exercise of its power, cancelled the irregular admission of 299 students, whose names were not in the admission list and keeping in view the future of 299 students directed the school to arrange for said students to appear in High School Examination as correspondence candidates as they could not be treated as regular students. It is further pleaded by the Board that out of 299 students 10 students appeared in the High School Examination, 2001 and the remaining students preferred not to appear. It has been put forth that the petitioner has misrepresented the factual scenario, and therefore, is not entitled to any relief. It is also stated that the Board has issued show-cause notice to the school with regard to cancellation of recognition. 6. I have heard Mr. S. K. Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Miss Jai Laxmi Ayer, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/Board, and Mr. Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's school is not at fault but the Board has taken a decision without any justification. Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's school is not at fault but the Board has taken a decision without any justification. It is further submitted by him that the petitioner has not violated any terms and conditions, and therefore, there was no reason not to allow the students of the petitioner's school to appear as regular students. Miss Jai Laxmi Ayer, learned counsel for the Board, has submitted that the petitioner did not adhere to the instructions and threw them to the winds, and hence, the Board had no alternative option but to take such an action and the same has been taken. Mr. Sanjay Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3, supported the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the Board. 8. Before I proceed to deal with the submissions raised at the Bar at the stage of final hearing it is relevant to state here that when this matter was listed on 2-7-2001 the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Board argued at length justifying their own contentions and this Court noted the reliefs sought for, narrated the factual scenario as put forth by the petitioner, referred to the stand of the Board and thought it apposite to get an inquiry conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department. This Court on that date in paragraph 4 expressed thus:- 4. In course of hearing of this petition it was strenuously urged by Miss Jaylaxmi Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the Board that names of 299 students did not feature in the original list submitted by the petitioner's school. This fact has been categorically controverted by Mr. Prabhakar Singh. As a factual dispute arises and it is grievous in nature, I am of the considered opinion that there should be a proper inquiry into the same. Accordingly it is thought apposite to direct that the Criminal Investigation Department shall cause an investigation with regard to the aspects whether names of 299 students were in the initial list of 500 students and further the school had sent the names of 299 students to the Board on both the occasions. Inquiry in this regard shall be conducted and the report shall be made available to this Court within a period of four weeks. Inquiry in this regard shall be conducted and the report shall be made available to this Court within a period of four weeks. Registry is directed to supply a copy of the writ petition and Preliminary Reply and order passed today to Mr. A. S. Raizadaa, learned Government Advocate to facilitate him to get the report. 9. The aforesaid direction was given as learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the names of 299 students were in the initial list and the school had sent the names of those students on both occasions but the said aspect was vehemently controverted by the learned counsel for the Board. 10. It is pertinent to state here that in pursuance of the aforesaid order an inquiry was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department and the said report was produced by the learned Government Advocate in a sealed cover. I have carefully perused the aforesaid report. I am obliged to state here that as I have indicated earlier that an attempt was made to scuttle the logical end of litigation which on certain occasions are absolutely warranted. The report indicates that the Board had sent the instructions which requires that names of the students, names of the parents, date of admission and certain other ancillary facts are to be intimated to the Board. The report also indicates that the Board has sent further communication to the schools. The report also states that the school in question has availed 500 examination forms and had sent only 350 examination forms to the Board. After narrating the facts the Criminal Investigation Department has found as under:- 11. Thus from the aforesaid report it is crystal clear that the petitioner had not only committed fraud with the students but also committed fraud with the Board. The list which was submitted on the first occasion is different than the list of students whose forms were filled up. As the report of this nature has come I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. Quite apart from the above, I am of the considered view, this kind of activity is not to be countenanced. Imparting of education is a sacrosanct act. In the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. vs. State of A. P. AIR 1993 SC 2178 , Hon'ble Mohan, J. in his concurring judgment while discussing about the education observed as under:- 14. Quite apart from the above, I am of the considered view, this kind of activity is not to be countenanced. Imparting of education is a sacrosanct act. In the case of Unni Krishnan, J.P. vs. State of A. P. AIR 1993 SC 2178 , Hon'ble Mohan, J. in his concurring judgment while discussing about the education observed as under:- 14. Victories are gained, peace is preserved, progress is achieved, civilization is built up and history is made not on the battle-field where ghastly murders are committed in the name of patriotism, not in the Council Chambers where insipid speeches are spun out in the name debate, not even in factories where are manufactured novel instruments to strangle life, but in educational institutions which are the seed-beds of culture, where children in whose hands quiver the destinies of the future, are trained. From their ranks will come out when they grow up, statesmen and soldiers, patriots and philosophers, who will determine the progress of the land. 12. In this context I may also profitably refer to the views expressed by Bhartruhari in his 'Neethishatkam' which was produced by the Apex Court in translation in the case of Unni Krishnan (supra) as under:- Education is the special manifestation of man; Education is the treasure which can be preserved without the fear of loss; Education secures material pleasure, happiness and fame; Education is the teacher of the teacher; Education is God incarnate; Education secures honour at the hands of the State, not money. A man without education is equal to animal. Education cannot be regarded as a commerce. It is meant to illuminate the students who are the future of the nation. If the organisers who run the schools take recourse to such path which is contrary to all norms and values, the system of education will see the dooms day and its consequences will be devastating. In view of the report submitted by the Criminal Investigation Department it is thought apposite and appropriate to direct that the criminal law be set in motion and prosecution be launched against the petitioner as an offence, prima facie, as per the report of the C.I.D. is revealed. Let appropriate action be taken in this regard as expeditiously as possible. In view of the report submitted by the Criminal Investigation Department it is thought apposite and appropriate to direct that the criminal law be set in motion and prosecution be launched against the petitioner as an offence, prima facie, as per the report of the C.I.D. is revealed. Let appropriate action be taken in this regard as expeditiously as possible. It is hereby made clear that because this Court had directed for launching of prosecution it does not necessarily mean that the petitioner would be deprived of his defence and the Court adjudicating the criminal case would be bound by any observation made herein. It is clarified that any observation made herein would not bind the trial Court and it would be at liberty to deal with the matter independently and objectively. 13. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition stands dismissed with cost of rupees five thousand.