JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.N. Varma, J.—The petitioner way back in 2005 had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 3391(MS) of 2005 for grant of recognition. This Court vide order dated 4.7.2005 disposed of the petition with a direction to the opposite parties to dispose of the petitioner’s representation within time stipulated in the said order. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the opposite parties vide order dated 22.11.2005 rejected the representation on the ground that at the relevant time the petitioner was not having permanent recognition and was below in the list of the institutions which were to be considered for grant-in-aid. Against the order dated 22.11.2005 rejecting the petitioner’s representation it again approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 5841(MS) of 2006. Vide order dated 19.3.2007, the said writ petition was finally disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner’s institution satisfies requisite conditions and fulfills all requirements for being considered to be taken under grant-in-aid, the petitioner’s case shall be considered expeditiously. In compliance of the order dated 19.3.2007 the opposite parties have disposed of the petitioner’s representation. It is against the said order that the petitioner has approached this Court through the instant writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused the order impugned in the writ petition. 3. The grounds on which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected is that before the petitioner’s case can be considered, there are 160 Madarsas who have applied for grant-in-aid and their cases are also under consideration. The conclusion arrived at by the opposite parties is on the basis of report submitted by Registrar/Inspector Arbi Pharsi Madarsas U.P. There appears absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the reasons which have been recorded while dismissing the representation. Moreover, the order directing a representation to be decided does not necessarily mean that the same has to be allowed. If a direction has been issued for considering and deciding a representation, the same has to be dealt with and decided by the concerned authority in accordance with law and on the basis of material on record as well as per merits of individual cases. The impugned order records cogent reasons based on material on record, as to why the representation of the petitioner could not find favour with the opposite parties. The impugned order records cogent reasons based on material on record, as to why the representation of the petitioner could not find favour with the opposite parties. The said reasons recorded by the opposite parties do not require any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under writ jurisdiction. 4. The writ petition, thus, being devoid of merits is, hereby, dismissed. ———