JUDGMENT : - A.K.Yog 1. ALL the aforesaid writ petitions from Sl. Nos. 1 to 13 are being taken up together and decided by a common judgment, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents treating Writ Petition No. 39282 of 1999 as the leading case. 2. RECORDS of writ petitions from Sl. Nos. 14 to 20, mentioned above, were summoned from the Registry with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and decided along with the leading case. The Committee of Management, called Dr. Ambedkar Shiksha Sadan Primary School, Khurana Road, district Baghpat (erstwhile part of district, Meerut) imparts primary education and is duly recognised under Basic Education Act. The Management of the Institution submitted requisite papers along with requisite form/application before the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Meerut for recommending and forwarding the same to the Deputy Director, Samaj Kalyan Department, Lucknow for obtaining permanent grant for salary of teaching and non-teaching employees of the Institution. Vide order dated May 21, 1999, the Government decided to extend one time financial aid by way of non-recurring grant to certain Institutions including the petitioner's institution with a rider that an undertaking should be given by the Management of such Institutions that by receiving financial aid on the basis of the said order, it shall not be utilised in future for making any claim on its basis/Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 3. IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that such a condition being imposed in the said order dated May 21, 1999, the management was sought to be precluded in future from making any demand for financial aid by way of non-recurring grant or regular grant-in-aid (on the basis of recurring grant). The said contention of the petitioner is clearly misplaced and under mis-apprehension. The condition contained in the said order dated 21.5.1999 merely clarifies that the petitioner shall not claim to have matured or perfected any right or semblance of it for claiming the financial aid in future. Such condition, however, by no stretch of imagination, can be inferred to mean that institution cannot approach State Government for financial aid and/or regular grant-in-aid otherwise. 4. Such condition, however, by no stretch of imagination, can be inferred to mean that institution cannot approach State Government for financial aid and/or regular grant-in-aid otherwise. 4. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner next submitted that Para 6 of the said order dated 21.5.1999 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) refers to Government order dated 12.4.1999, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also placed before the Court a photostat copy of the Government order dated 13.6.1999 (which is not on record) to show that the aforementioned Government order dated 12.4.1999 has been rescinded by the Government. The effect of subsequent order dated 13.6.1999 is only to the extent that Para 6 in the order dated 21.5.1999 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) shall be deemed to have became redundant. 5. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that a representation has been made to the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of U. P., Lucknow, on 22.7.1999 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and the same has not been decided. The respondents have, however, filed a counter-affidavit mainly relying upon the fact that grant-in-aid cannot be claimed as of right and that the Government cannot bear the burden for extending the facility of regular grant-in-aid. LEARNED standing counsel seeks to place reliance upon the case of Committee of Management, Middle School Samitee, Madiyapur, Azamgarh and others v. Director of School, Welfare Officer, U. P., Lucknow and others, (1993) 3 UPLBEC 1922. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : "(1) Grant-in-aid is not as of right and it is much less under law. Petitioner, who alleges to be Committee of Management of an educational institution, can at best ask for being considered for receiving grant-in-aid provided it has applied for the same and satisfies that the condition contained in relevant Government orders issued from time to time are satisfied by it. (2) Even otherwise, this Court, exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India, cannot direct the respondent to extend grant-in-aid to the petitioner. This Court can, at best, direct concerned authorities to consider the case of the petitioner." 6. (2) Even otherwise, this Court, exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India, cannot direct the respondent to extend grant-in-aid to the petitioner. This Court can, at best, direct concerned authorities to consider the case of the petitioner." 6. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, referred to the provisions of Articles 41, 45 and 46 contained in Chapter IV dealing with Directive Principles and with reference to the above provisions in Constitution has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Ramji Tiwari and others v. District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and others, 1997 (2) AWC 2 .223 (NOC) : (1997) 1 UPLBEC 690 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to place relevant portion of the said judgment to point out that this Court in the case of Ramji Tiwari (supra) has laid down ratio decidendi that grant-in-aid can be claimed as of right. In the case of Ramji Tiwari (supra) learned single Judge of this Court has taken note of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Unnikrishnan v. State of A. P., 1993 (1) SCC 645 . It may be mentioned that in the said decision, this Court as well as Supreme Court has in detail dwelled upon the importance on the subject of primary education and issued directions to the Government for taking positive steps in that direction for achieving the solemn object. Aims of primary education cannot be denied and need no deliberations. 7. QUESTION, however, is as to whether this Court can issue a writ commanding the State Government to extend privilege of bringing all the Institutions imparting primary education and/or secondary education on grant-in-aid list. While importance of education loses sight of, this Court cannot afford to ignore other similar important matters/ statutory obligations and duty which a Government is supposed to discharge in modern time, cannot be undermined or ignored and finance is certainly an important factor. The Government is best judge for allocating funds and providing finance as per its budget. It is, however, made clear that the State Government must show its seriousness supporting its bona fide acts to show that it has endeavoured to comply with directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishnan as well as in the case of Ramji Tiwari (supra). 8. It is, however, made clear that the State Government must show its seriousness supporting its bona fide acts to show that it has endeavoured to comply with directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Unni Krishnan as well as in the case of Ramji Tiwari (supra). 8. IN view of the discussions made above, I do not find that the petitioner has any statutory right which may be enforced by issuing a writ in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India. Since the petitioner has already approached the State Government by submitting a representation dated 22.7.1999, Annexure-4 to the writ petition and the same is admittedly pending, the respondents cannot abdicate from their obligation to decide the said representation. 12. Consequently, a writ of mandamus is issued against the concerned respondents and its authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 22.7.1999 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) as well as additional representation, if any, which may be filed by the petitioner, if so advised, within eight weeks from today along with certified copy of this judgment, by passing a reasoned order within three months of the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The petition stands partly allowed by moulding the relief to the extent indicated above. 9. NO order as to costs.