V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an aided school at Indrapalem near Kakinada town in East godavari District. It assails the Government Memo No. 7549/ps-2/2002-2, dated 16-10-2002 as illegal, improper and violative of principles of natural justice. It also seeks a declaration that there are no circumstances warranting exercise of power by the State Government under Rule 21 of the A. P. Educational institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 (hereafter called the Rules ) issued vide G. O. Ms. No. 1, Education (P. S. 2) Department, dated 1-1-1994. The facts in brief leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows. The petitioner established a Telugu Medium High School in 1985 to cater to the educational needs of Indrapalem. In 1992, Vivekananda Educational Society, established an English Medium High School in the same locality. In 1998, the said Society established a Telugu Medium upper primary school also, the fourth respondent herein. The petitioner objected for such establishment, in vain. The petitioner, however, did not pursue the matter further because it had sufficient strength up to upper primary school. During th year 2002-03, the fourth respondent sought permission to upgrade upper primary school by opening VIII class. As such opening of VIII Class would adversely affect the petitioner institution by resulting in depletion of pupil strength, the petitioner sent up a legal notice on 20-2-2002 and also a representation on 4-4-2002. The first respondent directed respondents 2 and 3 to examine the matter and send their remarks. Respondents 2 and 3 sent their reports to the effect that grant of permission would create unhealthy competition and rivalry among the two schools. The Government, in spite of the report, issued the impugned order relaxing Rule 4 of the Rules for upgrading the fourth respondent school by opening VIII Class from the academic year 2002-03. ( 2 ) THIS Court, while admitting the writ petition, by order dated 25-11-2002, passed in WPMP. No. 26126 of 2002, suspended the operation of the impugned order. The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit and in wvmp. No. 3863 of 2002 it sought to vacate the interim order. When the matter was listed before this Court, as the controversy is very short, the matter was heard finally with the consent of the respective counsel. No. 26126 of 2002, suspended the operation of the impugned order. The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit and in wvmp. No. 3863 of 2002 it sought to vacate the interim order. When the matter was listed before this Court, as the controversy is very short, the matter was heard finally with the consent of the respective counsel. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3, in their counter affidavit inter alia stated that on the representation made by the petitioner objecting the grant of permission to upgrade the fourth respondent school, an enquiry was conducted by respondents 2 and 3 and after receiving report, the Government, by taking into consideration the need of the locality and other circumstances, relaxed Rule 4 of the Rules in favour of the fourth respondent for opening Class VIII (Telugu Medium) during the academic year 2002-03. It is also stated that pursuant to the impugned orders, by proceedings dated 2-11-2002, the second respondent granted permission for upgradation of the fourth respondent school, but having regard to the orders passed by this Court on and 25-11-2002, the second respondent kept his earlier orders in abeyance. ( 4 ) THE fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit to the following effect. The writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. The upgradation of the fourth respondent school does not adversely affect the petitioner institution. The allegation that the petitioner institution is serving the educational needs of the locality is not correct. The fourth respondent applied for permission for upgradation of the school from upper primary school to high school. The first respondent granted permission for upgradation after satisfying with the requirements shown by the fourth respondent and having regard to the fact that the fourth respondent is an unaided institution and there is no financial commitment to the Government and permission was granted to the fourth respondent to better the quality of education. The exercise of power by the first respondent under Rule 21 of the rules is not illegal. The population of Indrapalem locality of Kakinada is increasing day by day. There is a need for another school in the name of the fourth respondent to serve the educational needs of the locality. The exercise of power by the first respondent under Rule 21 of the rules is not illegal. The population of Indrapalem locality of Kakinada is increasing day by day. There is a need for another school in the name of the fourth respondent to serve the educational needs of the locality. The fourth respondent is having adequate accommodation for the students as well as the staff besides having adequate sanitary facilities, drinking water, laboratory and play ground. Pupils are evincing interest to join the fourth respondent school for better education as fourth respondent is having good teaching staff. The petitioner without improving the quality of education is trying to interfere with the upgradation of the fourth respondent school. They filed the writ petition with a mala fide intention. There is no unhealthy competition betweenthe petitioner and the foruth respondent as alleged. The petitioner is envious regarding the upgradation of the fourth respondent school. The petitioner also indulged in illegal activities to see that upgradation is not granted to the fourth respondent school. ( 5 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, raised two contentions. First, he would submit that there are no circumstances warranting exercise of power under Rule 21 of the Rules. Secondly, he would urge that unless the educational needs of the locality are properly assessed, respondents 1 to 3 are not entitled to entertain an application either for establishment of new educational institution or upgradation of existing school. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal being violative of Section 20 of the A. P. Education act, 1982 ( the Act ). ( 6 ) LEARNED Asst. Govt. Pleader for School Education, Sri G. Elisha, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, refute the contention made on behalf of the petitioner. They would submit that the impugned order was passed in public interest relaxing the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules and, therefore, the exercise of power is valid. They would also submit that the requirement of Section 20 of the Act was also mentioned in Rule 4 and, therefore, when Rule 4 is relaxed, it is not proper for anybody to contend that Section 20 is violated. ( 7 ) SECTION 20 of the Act deals with the procedure for obtaining permission for establishment of educational institution. They would also submit that the requirement of Section 20 of the Act was also mentioned in Rule 4 and, therefore, when Rule 4 is relaxed, it is not proper for anybody to contend that Section 20 is violated. ( 7 ) SECTION 20 of the Act deals with the procedure for obtaining permission for establishment of educational institution. Under sub- section (1) of Section 20 read with sub-section (2), an educational agency has to make an application in the prescribed manner for establishing an institution imparting education or open higher classes in the existing institution or upgrade any such institution or open new school after the competent authority conducts survey for identifying the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction. Under sub-section (3) of Section 20, an educational agency applying for permission under sub-section (2) should satisfy the authority concerned that there was need for establishing educational institution in the locality, that there is adequate financial provision for continued and efficient maintenance of the institution etc. The Rules made in G. O. Ms. No. 1, dated 1-1-1994 provide a detailed procedure for grant of permission for establishment of pre-primary schools, primary schools, upper primary schools and high schools and procedure for withdrawal of recognition etc. Rule 4 thereof reads as under. 4. Criteria for Establishment of Schools:- (1) The following shall be the broad guidelines to be considered for grant of permission for the establishment of new schools or upgradation of existing schools- (a) Educational needs of the localities taking into consideration the population of the school-going children in the locality and their coverage by the existing schools; (b) Need to avoid unhealthy competition among the schools in the locality; (c) The viability of the proposed school after taking into consideration of the facts resolved to the Clauses (a) and (b) above. Explanation:- for the purpose of this Rule, the locality shall be as follows - (i) for Pre-primary/primary schools, the village or an area having a population of 200 and above; and a radius of 1 km. from the proposed location; (ii) for Upper Primary Schools, the village or an area having a opopulation of 200 and above, and a radius of 2 kms. From such village/habitation. In urban areas, it shall be 2 kms. from the proposed location; (ii) for Upper Primary Schools, the village or an area having a opopulation of 200 and above, and a radius of 2 kms. From such village/habitation. In urban areas, it shall be 2 kms. from the proposed location; (iii) for High Schools, the village or an area having a population of 200 and above and a radius of 5 kms. from such village/area. In urban areas, it shall be 5 kms. from the proposed location. (2) In respect of applications from Minority Educational Institutions, the same shall be considered from the view point of minorities and notwithstanding the lack of need on a general basis. ( 8 ) A reading of Rule 4 in juxta position with Section 20 of the Act would show that in substance both the provisions are same. Therefore, there is justification to infer that relaxation of Rule 4 would also amount to relaxation of conditions stipulated in Section 20 of the Act. When the Government exercises power under rule 21 and relaxes Rule 4 in favour of the institution either for establishment of a new educational institution or upgrading the existing institution, the submission that Section 20 is not specifically relaxed or exempted, would be misconceived. Insofar as Section 20 (3) (a) (i) of the Act and Rule 4 (i) (a) are concerned, both of them deal with the educational needs of the locality. Therefore, when once Rule 4 is relaxed by the Government for upgradation of existing educational institution, the same would also have effect of relaxation of Section 20 (3) (a) (i) of the Act. ( 9 ) IN Y. Venkata Reddy v. Commissioner and Director of School Education, a Division bench of this Court interpreted Rule 4 of the Rules and held that explanation to rule 4 clearly provided guidelines and that it has to be interpreted as directory. To appreciate the ratio of the said decision, it is necessary to briefly notice the facts therein. The competent authority accorded permission to Mandal Parishad Upper Primary School, Audipudi to open VIII Class (Telugu medium) for the academic year 2000-01 inter alia on the ground that the said village is at a distance of 1. 3 k. m. from Yerramvaripalem villag. The competent authority accorded permission to Mandal Parishad Upper Primary School, Audipudi to open VIII Class (Telugu medium) for the academic year 2000-01 inter alia on the ground that the said village is at a distance of 1. 3 k. m. from Yerramvaripalem villag. A member of Zilla Parishad Educational Committee challenged the permission granted by the competent authority to Mandal Parishad Upper Primary School on the ground that the strength of the school at Yerramvaripalem would come down. The learned single Judge, having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Prabodh verma v. State of U. P. , Ishwar Singh v. Kuldip Singh, J. Jose Dhanpaul v. S. Thomas and Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. In writ appeal, it was contended that the statutory rule which govern the field must be given full effect and that Rule 4 of the Rules is mandatory. The Division Bench rejected the said contention. Dealing with the functions of an explanation to a statute in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Sundaram Pillai v. R. Pattabhiraman, the division Bench held that Rule 4 is not mandatory and it is only directory. It is apt to quote the following observations from the judgment of the Division bench. ( 10 ) THE Rule, which is a subordinate legislation prior to the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land in terms of Art. 141 of the Constitution of India, must be interpreted keeping in view the said law. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that any policy decision taken by the State with a view to adopt the Directive Principles of State Policy and give effect to the fundamental right by which children below the age of 14 years should be given free education, cannot be construed in such a fashion which would deprive the children of their basic fundamental right. So read, the Explanation to Rule 4 aforementioned cannot be held to be a mandatory provision so as to enable the appellant to obtain a writ or order in the nature of Writ of Mandamus from this court. In any event, the aforementioned Explanation to Rule 4 must be read in the context of the main Rule. Rule 4 (1) as noticed hereinbefore merely provides for a broad guideline. In any event, the aforementioned Explanation to Rule 4 must be read in the context of the main Rule. Rule 4 (1) as noticed hereinbefore merely provides for a broad guideline. Such a broad guideline laid down by the State either by reason of a policy decision or a statutory rule can in no situation be held to be mandatory in nature keeping in view the fact that no consequence therefore has been provided. Violation of such guidelines is also not justiciable. (emphasis supplied) ( 11 ) WHEN the impugned order is scrutinized with reference to the question that there is no improper exercise of power under Rule 21 of the Rules, the interpretation of Rule 4 by the Division Bench cannot be ignored. Now, I may refer to Rule 21 which is as under. 21. Power to relax Rules:- The Government may relax any of the provisions in these rules involving any undue hardship to any educational agency or in public interest. ( 12 ) ALL the counsel admit that the Government has power to relax any provisions of the Rules when i) there is undue hardship to any educational agency and/or ii) in public interest. Sri C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the fourth respondent also concedes that the impugned order is not one, passed to mitigate any undue hardship to the fourth respondent school. Therefore, the question that requires consideration is whether there is any public interest warranting exercise of power to relax the rules. ( 13 ) THE fourth respondent is an existing educational institution. It also started a telugu Medium upper primary school in 1998. Be it noted that as per Section 2 (34) of the Act, primary education means Class I to VIII and as per Section 2 (37), secondary education means Class VIII to X. The fourth respondent which is a primary school applied to the competent authority, the second respondent herein, seeking permission to upgrade the primary (upper) school to high school by introducing, to start with VIII Class. The fourth respondent is already imparting education from Class I to VII. When it has adequate number of students who passed VII Class it is also legitimate on the part of the fourth respondent to seek such upgradation. The fourth respondent is already imparting education from Class I to VII. When it has adequate number of students who passed VII Class it is also legitimate on the part of the fourth respondent to seek such upgradation. When its application was under process, the petitioner sent a legal notice on 20-2-2002 objecting grant of such permission to the fourth respondent only on the ground that the strength of the petitioner school would come down if VIII Class is permitted to be started in the fourth respondent school. ( 14 ) THE petitioner is more interested in protecting its private interest presumably to retain the existing strength and it is not a person championing the cause of public interest. The petitioner again sent a representation to the Government on 4-4-2002. The Government did not act in haste. It called for a report from respondents 2 and 3. The second respondent in his report dated 31-7-2002 opined that though the petitioner is an aided school, if any other school is given permission, it might result in swing of students from existing school to new school and it may render the school uneconomical. Here again, detriment to public interest was not pointed out except saying that aided posts will be surplus in the petitioner school. The Government considered the report and by the impugned order directed relaxation of Rule 4 in favour of the fourth respondent school. The rationale and reasons for exercising power under Rule 21 are mentioned as under. ( 15 ) IN the reference 4th cited, the Commissioner and Director of School Education, andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, while forwarding the proposal of Regional Joint director of School Education, Kakinada, Guntur and report of the District educational Officer, Nellore District in respect of Vivekananda Public School, indrapalem, Kakinada (Rural), East Godavari District, requested Government for necessary orders in the matter. ( 16 ) IN the circumstances reported in the reference 3rd and 4th cited, the issue has been examined on the lines that since it is an unaided school and there is no financial commitment to Government and to encourage such institutions to give better quality education, therefore, the Government in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 21 of G. O. Ms. No. 1, Education (P. S. 2) Department, dated 1-1-1994, hereby relax Rule 4 of the said G. O. in favour of Vivekananda Public school, Indrapalem, Kakinada (Rural), East Godavari District for opening of class VIII (Telugu Medium) during the academic year 2002-2003. ( 17 ) IT is plain from the above that the Government granted relaxation of Rule 4 in favour of the fourth respondent because i) the fourth respondent is unaided school; ii) there is no financial commitment to the Government; and iii) to encourage such institutions to give better quality education. So to say, on the ground that there is no financial commitment from the Government and on the ground to encourage better quality of education, power was relaxed. Whether such relaxation is in public interest? ( 18 ) PUBLIC interest is a term capable of many meanings and many interpretations. Saving money to the State exchequer is certainly in public interest. If an authority is required, a reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme court in Raunaq International Ltd. v. I. V. R. Construction Ltd. It was observed therein. ( 19 ) WHEN a petition is filed as a public interest litigation challenging the award of a contract, by the State or any public body to a particular tenderer, the court must satisfy itself that the party which has brought the litigation is litigating bona fide for public good. The public interest litigation should not be merely a cloak for attaining private ends of a third party or of the party bringing the petition. The court can examine the previous record of public service rendered by the organisation bringing public interest litigation. Even when a public interest litigation is entertained, the court must be careful to weigh conflicting public interests before intervening. Intervention by the court may ultimately result in delay in the execution of the project. The obvious consequence of such delay is price escalation. If any retendering is prescribed, cost of the project can escalate substantially. What is more important is that ultimately the public would have to pay a much higher price in the form of delay in the commissioning of the project and the consequent delay in the contemplated public service becoming available to the public. If any retendering is prescribed, cost of the project can escalate substantially. What is more important is that ultimately the public would have to pay a much higher price in the form of delay in the commissioning of the project and the consequent delay in the contemplated public service becoming available to the public. If it is a power project which is thus delayed, the public may lose substantially because of shortage in electricity supply and the consequent obstruction in industrial development. If the project is for the construction of a road or an irrigation canal, the delay in transportation facility becoming available or the delay in water supply for agriculture being available, can be a substantial setback to the country s economic development. Where the decision has been taken bona fide and a choice has been exercised on legitimate considerations and not arbitrarily, there is no reason why the court should entertain a petition under Article 226. ( 20 ) THE second reason mentioned in the impugned order is that to give better education, institutions like fourth respondent may be encouraged. Attempt to increase the standards of education can never be treated as subverting public interest. Indeed, Article 51a (j) of the Constitution of India declares it public duty of every citizen of the country to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. If an institution comes forward to give better quality education and the Government, after weighing the pros and cons, exercises its power of relaxation and orders so by giving reasons, this Court cannot interfere in such decision. ( 21 ) THE power to relax/exempt from the provisions of legislation or delegated legislation is a unique power. It has to be exercised in tune with the objects of the statute and the objects thrusting such power to the authorities. In consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court considered this aspect of the matter in the background of Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu Town and country Planning Act, 1972 which conferred power on the Government to exempt any land or building from all or any provision of the said Act. In consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court considered this aspect of the matter in the background of Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu Town and country Planning Act, 1972 which conferred power on the Government to exempt any land or building from all or any provision of the said Act. After referring to earlier leading authorities on the subject in Sardar Inder Singh v. The State of rajasthan, P. J. Irani v. The State of Madras, Registrar of Co-operative societies, Trivandrum v. K. Kunhambu, A. N. Parasuraman v. State of Tamil Nadu, premium Granites v. State of Tamil Nadu and Mahe Beach Trading Co. v. Union territory of Pondicherry, the Supreme Court observed that when wide power is vested in the Government, it has to be exercised with great circumspection. While exercising such power, the authority has to keep in mind the purpose and policy of the Act and resultant effect of such grant on public and individual. It is apt to quote the following from the judgment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So long it does not materially effect the public cause, the grant would be to eliminate individual hardship which would be within the permissible limit of the exercise of power. But where it erodes the public safety, public convenience, public health etc. , the exercise of power could not be for the furtherance of the purpose of the Act. Minor abrasion here and there to eliminate greater hardship, may be in a given case, be justified but in no case affecting the public at large. So every time Government exercises its power it has to examine and balance this before exercising such a power. Even otherwise every individual right including fundamental right is within reasonable limit but if it inroads public rights leading to public in conveniences it has to be curtailed to that extent. So no exemption should be granted effecting public at large. Various development rules and restrictions under it are made to ward off possible public inconvenience and safety. Thus, whenever any power is to be exercised, Government must keep in mind, whether such a grant would recoil on public or not and to what extent. If it does then exemption is to be refused. Various development rules and restrictions under it are made to ward off possible public inconvenience and safety. Thus, whenever any power is to be exercised, Government must keep in mind, whether such a grant would recoil on public or not and to what extent. If it does then exemption is to be refused. If the effect is marginal compared to the hardship of an individual that may be considered for granting. ( 22 ) THEREFORE, applying the above principle, if exercise of power under Rule 21 is in public interest as mentioned in the impugned order, no interference is called for. I have already considered this aspect of the matter and if an educational institution is given the benefit of relaxation keeping in view the quality of education, the same must be held to be in public interest. As held by the division Bench in Y. Venkata Reddy v. Commissioner and Director of School education (supra), even if Rule 4 of the Rules is violated while granting permission, the same is not justiciable. ( 23 ) THE statute entrusts power to relax to the highest authority and if broad guidelines in the legislation are kept in mind and the impugned action subserves the public interest, the challenge should be repelled. The petitioner has failed to discharge the burden which lied on it to prove that the impugned order is not in public interest. Indeed, admittedly, the writ petition is filed to protect the private interest of the petitioner and this Court cannot adjudicate the private interest of the petitioner. In that view of the mater, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is not bona fide. The petitioner is not at all interested in public and at the instance of such petitioner the order passed by the Government in exercise of their power under Rule 21 of the Rules cannot be invalidated. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.