Judgment SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Provisional accreditation to Prerna Public School, Sirsa, petitioner herein, was not extended and even the permission for upgradation of the school to secondary level was declined by the National Open School, New Delhi vide its letter dated 6-6-2001. The petitioner-school has impugned this order Anexure P.4 in the present writ petition filed under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, on various grounds including lack of jurisdiction in the authority passing the order, the order suffers from element of bias, and that the grounds for declining extension, are factually incorrect. There cannot be any dispute to the legal proposition that the action of the respondents is amenable to writ jurisdiction and more particularly, it relates to imparting of education and providing for educational standards of the open schools in the country. 2. We may proceed to record relevant facts in order to effectively delve upon the discussion on the merits of the contentions raised before us in this petition. The Chairman of the National Open School granted provisional accreditation to the petitioner-school on 11-7-1997. This permission was granted for the academic year 1997-98 under Code No. 0556. The petitioner-school gave admission to students in the course obviously upon charging appropriate fees. According to the petitioner the school is affiliated to Central Board of School Education upto 10 + 2 in all the three streams. The petitioner-management was issued show cause notice on 17-10-2000 by respondent No. 1. Notice to show cause was served as to why school be not disaccredited for violation of the prescribed requirmeents within a period of three months. Reply to show cause was sent by the school on 22-11-2000 and vide order dated 6-6-2001 the accreditation granted to the school was withdrawn/not extended, resulting in the filing of the present writ petition by the petitioners on the grounds aforeindicated. 3. Upon notice reply was filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, National Open School, New Delhi. Preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court has been raised. It is stated that the order was passed after inspection by the Expert Committee and the entire matter was placed before the accreditation Advisory Committee. 3. Upon notice reply was filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, National Open School, New Delhi. Preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court has been raised. It is stated that the order was passed after inspection by the Expert Committee and the entire matter was placed before the accreditation Advisory Committee. Upon the approval therefrom and after affording opportunity to show cause to the petitioner the order dated 6-6-2001 has been passed in accordance with law and the same communicated to the petitioner by the Secretary of respondent No. 1. 4. We are not impressed by the contention of the respondents either that the respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India or this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this writ petition. The petitioner-school is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The inspection was conducted by the expert body of the school under the territorial jurisdiction of the Court as well as the orders granting and thereafter declining the accreditation have been communicated to this school at Sirsa. The cause of action based upon the above chain of events has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon ble five-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Miss Ravneet Kuar V/s. Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, 1997 (2) All Instant Judgments 417 5. We have noticed that accreditation was granted to this school provisionally by respondent No. 1. It is pertient to notice at this stage the relevant paragraph granting accreditation to the petitioner-school which reads as under :- "Dear Principal, I am to inform you that your school has been accredited provisionally for one year only as a study centre of National Open School for English/Hindi medium up to Secondary/Senior Secondary stage from the current/ensuing academic session 1997-98 and allotted a study Centre Code No. 0556, which may please be quoted in future correspondence with the National Open School." 6. It is clear that accreditation was granted to the petitioner-school provisionally and only for a period of one year. The school was permitted to open a study centre for the academic year 1997-98. The accreditation was subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the MOU signed between the parties. It is clear that accreditation was granted to the petitioner-school provisionally and only for a period of one year. The school was permitted to open a study centre for the academic year 1997-98. The accreditation was subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the MOU signed between the parties. From the bare reading of the show cause notice dated 17-10-2000 it appears that the petitioner-school had violated various terms and conditions of accreditation. It was stated that the school during the years 1999 and 2000 in an unauthorised and illegal manner gave admission to the students. It was also stated that in collusion with the students the school got a suit filed against it, being Civil Suit No. 238 of 1999, wherein interim orders were passed for admission of students. The regional office as well as the Headquarters of the National Open School were not impleaded as party in the said suit and they were never informed by the school authorities of the orders passed by the Court. The school did not oppose the interim orders before the trial Court or even in appeal before the appellate Court. However, subsequently the said suit was not pursued and dismissed. Thus, it was stated that the petitioner-school had colluded with the students and their parents to defeat the terms and conditions of accreditation. Allegations with regard to lack of infrastructure were also highlighted in the order. The petitioner submitted reply. Finding the reply to be totally unsatisfactory, the accreditation of the school was withdrawn. 7. We may notice that before the order withdrawing the accreditation of the school, an expert team had visited the school on 1-9-1998. The averments made in the show cause notice stood corroborated by the complaints received by respondent No. 1 from various quarters. It is contended by the petitioner that copies of these complaints were not furnished to them. In normal circumstances, this contention could have some merit, but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this contention is inconsequential. The petitioner has failed to show what prejudice it has suffered as a result of non-supply of these documents. In fact these were hardly material documents because there were only complaints against accepting of forms by the school in unauthorised manner and despite the fact that they had no accreditation for the years 1999 and 2000. The petitioner has failed to show what prejudice it has suffered as a result of non-supply of these documents. In fact these were hardly material documents because there were only complaints against accepting of forms by the school in unauthorised manner and despite the fact that they had no accreditation for the years 1999 and 2000. Thus, there was no justification for the school why they were charging fees from the students for that period. Both these allegations were contained in the show cause notice. They were rather supported by the complaints received from the Sarpanch of the village. It is not even disputed that the school had no accreditation for the academic years 1998, 1999, 2000, but still it charged fees from the students and sent the forms unauthorisedly to respondent No. 1. In fact it is a case of clear admission on the part of the petitioner-school that it was operating in an unauthorised manner and without accreditation being rendered by the competent authority. 8. Keeping in view the reply, the authorities, while withdrawing the accreditation, came to the following conclusion :- "Considering all the material placed before the Committee and the reply of the school to the show cause notice given to the school, the school is liable for the consequence of illegal acts committed by the school. Consequently the accreditation of the school for secondary course which was granted for fixed term is not to be extended further for subsequent years and is hereby withdrawn. For grant of accreditation for Secondary and Senior Secondary course upgradation, a school has to apply giving all the particulars and the documents in support of the facts disclosed by the school. After the receipt of the application which was perused, the inspection was done. The Inspection Committee visited the school on 1-9-1998, however, the relevant material was not produced to substantiate the claim of upgradation. The inspection was carried out to ascertain the facts for grant of upgradation. During the same the school had also started committing illegalities in accepting the forms of the students for senior secondary course for which it was not accredited. The illegalities committed by the school have continued for which the accreditation granted to the school for secondary course for a fixed term is not extended further. During the same the school had also started committing illegalities in accepting the forms of the students for senior secondary course for which it was not accredited. The illegalities committed by the school have continued for which the accreditation granted to the school for secondary course for a fixed term is not extended further. Since the school is now not accredited for Secondary Course, the school shall not be entitled for upgradation also. In any case the school did not furnish material to substantiate its claim for upgradation after it failed to furnish the same during inspection which had been carried out. In the circumstances the school is not entitled for upgradation and the application of the school for upgradation is also declined in the facts and circumstances." 9. In order to safeguard the career of the students who had been granted unauthorised admissions and whose forms had been submitted to respondent No. 1, the National Open School made alternative arrangements for further study and completion of the academic session of such students. This act on the part of respondent No. 1 is laudable and speaks of ample bona fides on their part. Para No. 17 of the said order reads as under :- "Your students who have been enrolled through you, but have not passed yet, are being transferred to another accredited institution at and around Sirsa, for which separate orders will be issued. You are hereby directed that all the record concerning the students, be kept ready to send it to the other AI. Henceforth you will not collect any fee etc. from students on behalf of NOS." 10. Grant of accreditation or its withdrawal or non-extension squarely falls within the domain and jurisdiction of the National Open School. In terms of the letter dated 11-7-1997 it was an obligation on the part of petitioner-school to seek timely extension of accreditation of every subsequent year. Having failed to discharge such obligation, the petitioner-school can hardly argue that the action of the respondents is arbitrary. The accreditation granted to the school was not only provisional in its nature and content, but was only for secondary level of the school and not for higher secondary level. In other words, the school had no power to grant admission to the students in 10 +2 level of education. The accreditation granted to the school was not only provisional in its nature and content, but was only for secondary level of the school and not for higher secondary level. In other words, the school had no power to grant admission to the students in 10 +2 level of education. No plausible explanation has been rendered even on the record of this file to show that the act of the school was bona fide in accepting the forms. 11. Copy of the interim order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa dated 30-8-1999 has been placed on record as Annexure P/9 by the petitioner. The language of the said order clearly shows collusion on the part of the school. The school only sought adjournment knowing fully well that the National Open School had not even been impleaded as a party to that suit. Again, an order was passed directing the school to send the forms, but the school opted not to contest the said orders in any manner, whatever, by taking recourse to appropriate remedy. We are certainly in doubt whether the learned Court below could have passed such orders within the four corners of law. This practically amounts to decreeing the suit of the plaintiff by passing such interim orders and that too against the National Body, which was not even impleaded as a defendant in that suit. We would prefer to leave the matter at that and prefer to return back to the merits of the case. 12. We have already noticed that granting or declining to grant accreditation to the schools is a function of an expert body and the Court would certainly accept such findings to be correct unless it was a case of exceptional circumstances. The Hon ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that normally the Courts, on its own, would not displace the view of an expert body unless there were compelling circumstances. Further more, it is also the settled position of law that the Courts would not direct University or Boards to act contrary to their own statutes or regulations in regard to education matters. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank V/s. D. B. Sharma, 2000 (Supp) 2 JT (SC) 596 and A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society V/s. Govt. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank V/s. D. B. Sharma, 2000 (Supp) 2 JT (SC) 596 and A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society V/s. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1986 SC 1490 13. If a case of strong mala fides, bias and orders being palpably erroneous or based no facts, was pleaded and established on record by specific averments and documents, the Court may have to examine such a case. But, the present case is one where equities are entirely titled against the petitioner. We see no mala fide or arbitrariness on the part of respondent No. 1. 14. In view of the above settled position and keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case, we have come to conclusion that this writ is without any merit. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, it is made clear that the school would be at liberty to approach respondent No. 1 for seeking accreditation afresh, if it satisfies the condition stipulated by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 would obviously be at liberty to consider the said application in accordance with rules. Petition dismissed.