Judgment :- The following questions would arise for consideration in this petition: (i) Whether the action of respondent No.3 in naming the School after the donor’s name. Who has gifted the lands to the School, leads to any public interest? (ii) Whether the impugned notification issued by respondent No.3 to name the School after the donor’s name, who donated the lands in the year 1955 calls for interference? 2. The petitioners claim that they are permanent residents of K. Kallahalli village. Harappanahalli Taluk and espousing the cause of residents of K. Kallahalli village. The petitioners are before this Court praying for quashing the notification dated 26.05.2009 at Annexure ‘D’ passed on the file of respondent No.3. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of writ petition may be stated under: One A.B. Mallappa S/o. Ningappa who was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.205 measuring 7 acres 46 cents and Sy.No.128 measuring 2 acres situated in K. Kallahalli village were donated under a gift deed dated 10.8.1955 in favour of the then Government of Mysore for the benefit of the Board of Elementary School at K. Kallahalli village. Now, the land has been transferred in the name of first respondent – State of Karnataka. One Sri Chidanandappa, the former President of the Zilla Panchayath of Davanagere had made a representation to the 3rd respondent – Block Education Officer and the 2nd respondent- the Assistant Director of public Instructions bring to their notice that his ancestors have gifted the land in the year 1955 for the school and requested to name the school after the donor’s name A.B. Mallappa. The request was objected by the villagers and the School development Committee, but the 3rd respondent, by notification dated 26.5.2009 ordered that the Government High Scholl situated in K.Kallahalli village should be named after Sri A.B.Mallappa and issued a notification dated 26.5.2009 [Annexure`D’]. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court by filing a public interest petition, contending that since the land was donated in the year 1955 and Government notification is of the year 1989, the respondent No.3 erred in applying the notification of the year 1989 and changing the name of the school. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court by filing a public interest petition, contending that since the land was donated in the year 1955 and Government notification is of the year 1989, the respondent No.3 erred in applying the notification of the year 1989 and changing the name of the school. It is also contended that if the school is named after the donor’s name, no other person would come forward to donate and the interest of the school will be affected and in changing the name of the School is due to political interest. 4. In so far as the first question whether there is a public interest in the instant case is concerned. We may say ‘public interest’ means those interest which concern the public at large. Matter of public interest “does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or love of information or amusement; but that is which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected” [vide CAMPBELL, C.J., R v. Bedfordshire, 4 E and B.541,542]. In the instant case, in recognition of the donor, who donated lands in question in the year 1955, was ordered to be named after the name of the donor Sri A B Mallappa. Though the land was donated in the year 1955, the School has started functioning in the year 2002-03. The Government of Karnataka has issued a notification in the year 1989. According to that if any person intends to donate lands for construction of a School or a College or contributes atleast 1/3rd of the total cost of construction, the educational institution could be named either after the donor or in the name of the donor’s choice. The contention of the petitioner that if the School is named after the donor’s name, no other person would come forward to donate to the School, is without basis. We are of the opinion that there is no public interest in the instant case as the impugned notification does not affect any rights of the public. Therefore, We answer question No.(i) in the negative. On this score alone, the Petition is liable to be dismissed. However, to err on the safer side. We dwell upon the merits of the case proceed to answer question No.(ii). 5. Therefore, We answer question No.(i) in the negative. On this score alone, the Petition is liable to be dismissed. However, to err on the safer side. We dwell upon the merits of the case proceed to answer question No.(ii). 5. No doubt, the Government has issued a notification in the year 1989 with regard to naming the educational institution after the name of the donor or of his choice. The act of respondent No.3 in recognising the donor, who has donated the land for the School in the year 1955 by naming the School after the donor’s name has to be appreciated. In our view, the impugned notification does not infringe anybody’s right or fundamental right or directive principles of State policy. Hence, We answer the second question also in the negative. 6. In the result, the Petition fails the same is hereby dismissed.