Judgment :- Mohan Shantanagoudar, J: By the impugned order, the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Bangalore has directed the petitioner to close Sections 3A and 3B of Primary School run by the petitioner, as the same are being run unauthorisedly. 2. The records reveal that the petitioner is running school under the name of “Vivekananda International Public School” situated in No.2, New Mico Road, Adugodi, Bangalore-30. The permission was granted on 16.12.2002 to run classes from 1st standard to 7th standard. Thereafter, it seems the petitioner has obtained permission to run classes upto 10th standard, consequently, the school is conducting education upto 10th Standard. However, the petitioner has now shifted classes 3A and 3B in the newly constructed building in the residential layout having No.3/2 New Mico Road, Adugodi, Bangalore 30 without taking permission of the respondents. The neighbours of residential layout No. 3/2, New Mico Road, Adugodi, Bangalore having noticed that the newly shifted classes are creating nuisance in the locality, objected before the Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bangalore for the same and prayed for closing down the said classes. At an earlier point of time, an order came to be passed by Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bangalore as per Annexure-D dated:28.7.2008 directing the petitioner to close down the two classes which are shifted to the new place without permission of the concerned authorities. The said order was questioned before this Court in W.P.No. 10578/2008. The writ petition came to be disposed of by directing the petitioner herein to treat the order/notice Annexure-D dated 28.7.2008 as show cause notice issued to him and permitted him to file statement of objections. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed statement of objections as per Annexure-G dated 26th August, 2008. After considering the statement of objections, the impugned order is passed as per Annexure-H dated 9.9.08 directing the petitioner to close down classes 3A and 3B shifted to new premises i.e., No.3/2, New Mico Road, Adugodi, Bangalore-30 as they are not only unauthorized, but also creating nuisance to the public at large. 3. Sri.Shekar Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that detailed statement of objections filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-G dated 6th August, 2006 are not properly considered, inasmuch as, impugned order is cryptic and vague. 3. Sri.Shekar Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that detailed statement of objections filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-G dated 6th August, 2006 are not properly considered, inasmuch as, impugned order is cryptic and vague. He further submits that it is not necessary for the petitioner to obtain permission of anybody, much less, the authorities concerned to shift the classes to any other place, particularly when, the petitioner institution is an unaided institution. 4. Writ petition is opposed by Sri. B.V. Rama Moorthy, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 8. Said respondents got themselves impleaded in the writ petition on the ground that they are the interested persons in the writ petition, inasmuch as, they are affected by the action of the petitioner of shifting the classes to the new premises. According to them the newly shifted classes are being run in a building, which is situated adjoining just 6 feet road and it is impossible for the residents of the locality to live peacefully. 5. Sri. B. Manohar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 argued that while granting permission to run the school to the petitioner’s institution, the authorities have specifically directed that the petitioner shall run only one class in each standard and that the petitioner shall not have more classes without the permission of the Education Department. As the petitioner has opened new classes without the permission of the authorities, the action of the petitioner is illegal and therefore the Deputy Director of Public instructions is justified in passing the impugned order. 6. If the petitioner is granted permission to run the school by imposing certain conditions, the petitioner is bound by such conditions. Therefore,. The authorities will have to verify from the order granted to the petitioner, whether the petitioner was specifically granted to run only one section in each standard and to find out as to whether the petitioner was directed not to open more sections without the permission of the authority concerned. Said exercise is not done by Deputy Director of Public Instructions while passing the impugned order. The impugned order merely reveals that as the petitioner is running two sections viz., 3A and 3B unauthorisedly in the new premises and as the same crates nuisance to the public at large, it is directed to close down the said sections. Said exercise is not done by Deputy Director of Public Instructions while passing the impugned order. The impugned order merely reveals that as the petitioner is running two sections viz., 3A and 3B unauthorisedly in the new premises and as the same crates nuisance to the public at large, it is directed to close down the said sections. The statement of objections filed by the petitioner5 in detail are not considered by Deputy Director of Public Instructions while passing the impugned order. Since the order impugned is cryptic and does not answer to the questions raised by the petitioner and also does not reveal as to whether the petitioner was specifically directed to have only one section in each standard, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter has to be remitted back to the authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the following order is made: The impugned order Annexure-H dated:9.9.2008 stands quashed. The matter is remitted to second respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The second respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as to respondent Nos.3 to 3 and consider their statements before passing the order, in future. The second respondent also should verify from the order of grant of permission to the petitioner, whether restrictions imposed on the petitioner while opening the additional sections, are followed or not. The entire exercise shall be done by the second respondent as observed above by this Court within four months from the date of receipt of this order. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.