Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.:- These are three writ petitions which are being decided by a common judgement and order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. L.P. Misra, apart from arguing the writ petitions on merits, submitted that in view of the undertaking given by the respondents' counsel that they will not use the disputed property, namely, the building which they have constructed for the purpose but they have started running the college, in which they have admitted students, the respondents cannot be allowed to be heard because of the aforesaid conduct. 3. Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents, submitted that in the institution about 300 students have been admitted and they are continuing with their studies and realising that a mistake has been committed by the respondents, they had furnished an unconditional apology and, therefore, their apology be accepted and the matter be heard on merit. His further submission is that it is the sole discretion of the Court to take any action or to accept the apology, in case the undertaking has been violated but no indefeasible right has accrued in favour of the petitioners for seeking a direction for not allowing the respondents to argue the matter on merits. 4. We have considered the aforesaid argument and we find that though there was violation of undertaking but in view of the fact that an unconditional apology has been tendered, we accept the same. 5. We also take notice of the fact that a large number of students have been admitted and they are pursuing their courses, therefore, it would be interest of all the parties that the matter be heard on merits. 6. We, therefore, overrule the aforesaid objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. Writ Petition No. 9650 (MB) of 2007 has been filed by Har Vilas Tiwari and others. It has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, initially seeking a restraint order from transferring the land of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College, Semri, Sultanpur by way of gift deed in favour of opposite parties no. 7. Writ Petition No. 9650 (MB) of 2007 has been filed by Har Vilas Tiwari and others. It has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, initially seeking a restraint order from transferring the land of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College, Semri, Sultanpur by way of gift deed in favour of opposite parties no. 9 and 10, i.e. Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya Samiti, Mehmoodpur Semri, District Sultanpur, but during pendency of the writ petition, by means of amendment, the permission granted by the Joint Director of Education, Faizabad Region, Faizabad vide orders dated 18.10.07 and 21.1.08 under Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974, has also been asked to be quashed alongwith the relief that the Collector, District Sultanpur be directed not to give effect to the aforesaid gift deeds (two in number) in the revenue records. 8. Writ Petition No. 11513 (MB) of 2008 has again been filed by Har Vilas Tiwari against the same very persons, namely, Om Prakash Tripathi and Suresh Chandra Tiwari, besides State and other authorities for quashing the recognition granted by the State Government for opening of a new degree college named as Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya, Semari, Sultanpur and also for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 23.4.08, by means of which grant was sanctioned to the institution aforesaid. A further prayer has been made that the Vice Chancellor, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad be directed by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, not to affiliate the said institution Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya. 9. Writ Petition No. 11606 (MB) of 2009 has been filed by the Committee of Management, Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya Samiti, Mehmoodpur Semri, District Sultanpur against Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia University and the State of Uttar Pradesh for issuing a direction to the Tehsildar for deciding the mutation application filed by the petitioner and a further writ in the nature of mandamus commanding Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University and the State to consider and grant permanent recognition to the petitioner college, as it was running under temporary recognition. 10. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University and the State to consider and grant permanent recognition to the petitioner college, as it was running under temporary recognition. 10. Writ Petition No. 9650 (MB) of 2007 is the leading petition and the subsequent two writ petitions are an offshoot of the same dispute, namely, Writ Petition No. 11513 (MB) of 2008 was filed for the relief claimed therein as mentioned above, for quashing the recognition of the Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya and not to grant affiliation etc. 11. Since the college was granted temporary recognition, the Writ Petition No. 11606 (MB) of 2009 has been filed simply because the application of Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya for its mutation in the revenue record was not being considered by the Tehsildar and also because permanent affiliation was not being granted by the University, apparently because of the interim orders passed in Writ Petition No. 9650 (MB) of 2007. 12. For the purpose of this order, the petitioners of the Writ Petition No. 9650 (MB) of 2007 would be referred to, as the petitioners and the opposite parties in the aforesaid writ petition would be called as opposite parties. 13. In the writ petition though the dispute regarding the election and constitution of the Committee of Management has been given in detail with the litigation that had taken place between the parties but in view of the fact that the said controversy is not relevant for deciding the present controversy, we skip the same. 14. We, however, take notice of the fact that as per the case of the petitioners, as urged by their counsel, Shiksha Prasar Samiti, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, runs the institution known as Pt. Raja Ram Inter College, Semri, whereas Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya, Mahmoodpur, Semri is run by a different Society, namely, Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya Samiti, Mehmoodpur Semri Society, Sultanpur and is having a different Committee of Management. 15. Sri O.P. Tripathi is the Manager of Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya and also the Chairman of the Committee of Management of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College, Semri, whereas Suresh Chandra Tiwari, opposite party no. 11, is the Manager of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College and the President of Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya. 16. By means of certain resolutions passed by the Committee of Management of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College, Semri, whereas Suresh Chandra Tiwari, opposite party no. 11, is the Manager of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College and the President of Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya. 16. By means of certain resolutions passed by the Committee of Management of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College, Semri and accepted by the Committee of Management, Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya Samiti, it was decided that certain land belonging to Pt. Raja Ram Inter College be gifted to Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya for raising a degree college for running self-financing courses. In pursuance of the decision so taken, two separate gift deeds were executed, though on the same date i.e. 22.10.07 with respect to different plots and they were duly registered. Copies of the two gift deeds have been brought on record as Annexure-4 and 5. 17. One gift deed was executed in respect of plot no. 445, area .3444 hectares and the other was executed in respect of plot no. 393 area 0.6610 hectares and plot no. 400 area 1.359 hectares. Before execution of the gift deeds with respect to plot no. 400, permission was sought under Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974, which was granted by Joint Director of Education on 12.10.07. 18. Later on, during pendency of the writ petition, permission was granted with respect to two other plots also, namely, plot no. 393 and 445 by the Joint Director of Education on 21.1.08. 19. It is now an established fact that the building of the institution has been constructed and courses have started running under the temporary affiliation granted by the University. 20. 393 and 445 by the Joint Director of Education on 21.1.08. 19. It is now an established fact that the building of the institution has been constructed and courses have started running under the temporary affiliation granted by the University. 20. Assailing the right of the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid gift deeds with respect to the plots mentioned above and consequent challenge to the permission granted by the Joint Director of Education under Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1974, and also for restraining the University from granting permanent affiliation/recognition etc., Sri S.K. Kalia, Senior Advocate, vehemently urged that the petition cannot be treated in Public Interest, as it has been filed with a vested interest, which defeats the public cause, when it prays for a restraint order from establishing a degree college, which would not be in the interest of the village in question and also the surrounding areas from where students can come for higher studies. 21. It is also being submitted that the manner in which the petition has been drafted, shows that it is because of the competing claim being put by Har Vilas Tiwari for having control over the affairs of the institution that this petition has been filed and being conscious of the said fact that it is a personal grudge or grievance, which has been actually put forward in the writ petition, just to give it a colour of Public Interest Litigation, few residents of the area have also been included in the array of petitioners. 22. Further submission is that how the residents would be affected by opening of a new degree college has not been explained in the writ petition but the only ground of attack is that while transferring the land in question in favour of Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya, permission under Section 5 of the Act of 1974 in respect of plots no. 393 and 445, was taken subsequent to the execution of the gift deeds, though permission for transfer of plot no. 400 was granted before the execution of the gift deed, but such permission could not have been granted for transfer of these plots, may be by execution of gift deeds under Section 5 of the said Act, as the transfer was not being made, for benefit of the donor college/society. 400 was granted before the execution of the gift deed, but such permission could not have been granted for transfer of these plots, may be by execution of gift deeds under Section 5 of the said Act, as the transfer was not being made, for benefit of the donor college/society. 23. It has further been submitted that since during pendency of the writ petition, Har Vilas Tiwari, the present petitioner no. 1, styling himself as representative of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College, filed two separate regular suits for cancellation of the two gift deeds, therefore, the petition cannot be said to be maintainable any more, even if it was entertained earlier. The suits have been filed in the name of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College through Harvilas Tiwari, member. 24. In response Dr. L.P. Misra appearing for the petitioners submitted that since it is a case where immovable property of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College has been parted away by means of two gift deeds in favour of another institution, without there being any reason and necessity and that too against the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1974, the said act cannot be said to be in public interest and, in fact, it is prejudicial to the interest of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College, to whom the property belongs, therefore, the aforesaid action can be challenged by filing Public Interest Litigation. He, however, clarified that the petitioners are not opposed to opening of a degree college, but the manner in which it is being done, in violation of the statutory provisions, is being opposed. 25. In support of this plea, he has referred Section 5 of the Act of 1974, which says that previous approval is necessary for transfer of the property and provides that notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, no transfer of property belonging to or endowed for purposes of an educational institution shall be valid unless prior written sanction of the Director, on the ground of the transfer being necessary or beneficial to or expedient in the interest of the institution, has been obtained. 26. Submission is that out of the two gift deeds, admittedly one has been executed before the written sanction was obtained from the Joint Director of Education with respect to plots no. 26. Submission is that out of the two gift deeds, admittedly one has been executed before the written sanction was obtained from the Joint Director of Education with respect to plots no. 393 and 445 and, therefore, such a gift deed would not confer any right upon the donee and that the ex-post-facto permission granted would not cure the defect. 27. Argument further is that the permission granted with respect to plot no. 400 appears to have been granted under misconception that it was being granted for the purpose of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, a society which runs Pt. Raja Ram Inter College. 28. Besides the aforesaid plea, it has also been urged that the Joint Director of Education could not have granted the permission, unless the transfer was found to be necessary and beneficial to, or in the interest of the institution. Submission is that there was neither any necessity nor such a transfer was in the interest of the institution, namely, Pt. Raja Ram Inter College nor was beneficial to the said college nor was expedient in the interest of the institution and, as such, the Joint Director of Education was not having any authority to grant any such permission. 29. Stress has been laid upon the fact that Sri Om Prakash Tripathi and Suresh Chandra Tiwari have clandestinely effected the said transfer, taking advantage of the fact that both are the elected office bearers of the Committee of Management of the two institutions. 30. In regard to the plea that in the presence of the two regular suits having been filed by Pt. Raja Ram Inter College, through Har Vilas Tiwari for cancellation of the two gift deeds, namely, Regular Suit No. 11 of 2009 and 20 of 2009, wherein an application for temporary injunction has also been moved, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that application for withdrawal of the suits has already been filed. 31. However, it is a fact that despite the present writ petitions being listed thereafter for number of times and couple of months having lapsed, the suits have not yet been withdrawn nor have been dismissed and thus, they are pending. 32. 31. However, it is a fact that despite the present writ petitions being listed thereafter for number of times and couple of months having lapsed, the suits have not yet been withdrawn nor have been dismissed and thus, they are pending. 32. Sri S.K. Kalia, refuting the aforesaid arguments submitted that establishment of a new degree college cannot be said to be not in public interest, as it would cater the need of not only the students of the village but also of a large area surrounding the place. He further says that providing an institution of the level of degree courses, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be not in public interest and rather, stopping the same would be against public interest. 33. With respect to the plea of violation of Section 5 of the Act of 1974, he submitted that Section 4 defines that what is dissipation. 34. Section 4 has the sub-heading 'Prevention of dissipation' and says that notwithstanding, anything in any other law for the time being in force, the management shall not incur any expenditure which is not in conformity with the aims and objects of the educational institution or is so excessive as to be disproportionate to the income thereof or is for any other reasons, such as no prudent management would deem fit to incur in the interest of the institution, and which is not sanctioned under this Act. 35. Sri Kalia further submitted that the institution has not incurred any such expenditure nor has done anything which no management could have done, as giving a part of the land, without disturbing the autonomy of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College which is having more than sufficient land, as required under the norms prescribed, it cannot be said that such a transfer could not have been effected, particularly when permission has been granted under Section 5 of the Act of 1974. Establishing a degree college by the Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya, Semri, Sultanpur, on whose board i.e. on the Committee of Management some office bearers of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College are also sitting, would in no way mean that any land has been illegally gifted to the institution or that the property has been dissipated. Establishing a degree college by the Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya, Semri, Sultanpur, on whose board i.e. on the Committee of Management some office bearers of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College are also sitting, would in no way mean that any land has been illegally gifted to the institution or that the property has been dissipated. The land has been given for a good and noble cause, where only a degree college is being opened, which, in fact, is running and, therefore, the plea that no permission could at all be granted by the Joint Director of Education, even in respect of plot no. 400 and subsequent permission granted with respect to other two plots, has no force, if tested in the light of the facts of the present case and deserves to be rejected. 36. He also refuted the plea of the petitioners that the permission has been granted by the Joint Director under misconception that it has been granted for the purpose of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, whereas the order specifically says that on the resolution of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, the permission has been granted for transfer in favour of Acharya Chanakya Mahavidyalaya, Semri, Sultanpur. 37. Dr. L.P. Misra has also urged that without the prior approval of the Court for transfer of the immovable property, the transfer would be void as per Section 5-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 38. Sri S.K. Kalia, in response to the aforesaid argument, submitted that the provision of Section 5-A are not attracted in the instant case, in view of the fact that Section 5 of the Act of 1974 starts with a non obstante clause, therefore, after permission being granted by the Joint Director of Education, the property of the institution cannot be said to have been not validly transferred by executing the gift deeds. 39. Arguments have been advanced at great length on the merits of the case but we are of the view that this petition cannot be taken to be a Public Interest Litigation on behalf of the petitioners nor the same can survive in view of the forum of civil suit being pursued by Har Vilas Tiwari, for cancellation of two gift deeds, which civil suits are still pending. 40. So far the petitioners no. 1 to 4 are concerned, they claim themselves to be the life-long members and petitioners no. 40. So far the petitioners no. 1 to 4 are concerned, they claim themselves to be the life-long members and petitioners no. 5 to 12 are said to be the residents of the village. Though the membership of the petitioners no. 1 to 4 has been disputed but, without entering into the question, whether they are life-long members or not, it is apparent that their grievance regarding the transfer of the land of their institution cannot be raised in a Public Interest Litigation, though they may be entitled to challenge the aforesaid action by moving to the appropriate forum for establishing their claim or for protecting the interest of the institution, with respect to its own property. 41. A writ petition which has an element of personal interest, raising a personal grievance, cannot be said to be a Public Interest Litigation. If the property of the institution, of which the petitioners no. 1 to 4 claim to be life-long members, is being dissipated or being misused or misutilized, they cannot come in Public Interest Litigation and can only pursue their remedy as aggrieved persons, if any case is made out, as may be permissible under law. Harvilas Tiwari has already filed two regular suits for cancellation of the two gift deeds, which obviously means for setting aside the transfer made. 42. In regard to the locus standi of opposite parties no. 5 to 12, who are the residents of Village Semri, suffice it would be to mention that the residents of the area can neither be aggrieved by opening of a new degree college, where in the vicinity there is no such college and establishment of such an institution would undoubtedly and unfailingly would further the cause of eduction and would provide opportunity to the interested and studious persons to pursue their higher studies nor opening of such an institution can be said to be not in public interest, rather, without entering into any debate, opening of an institution of the standard of degree college is certainly a public purpose. 43. Petitioners no. 5 to 12, therefore, as residents, cannot be said to have raised any cause in public interest or in larger interest of the public but it appears that they have joined hands with petitioners no. 1 to 4 only to make the petition look like a Public Interest Litigation. 44. 43. Petitioners no. 5 to 12, therefore, as residents, cannot be said to have raised any cause in public interest or in larger interest of the public but it appears that they have joined hands with petitioners no. 1 to 4 only to make the petition look like a Public Interest Litigation. 44. It is a different matter that the petitioners no. 1 to 4, if have any cause or reason for grievance against the transfer of the aforesaid land or execution of the gift deeds, they can challenge it otherwise, but not in Public Interest Litigation, which forum, as a matter of fact, has already been approached by the petitioner no. 1, by filing two civil suits. 45. This writ petition is thus, not maintainable because of the fact that the petitioners cannot avail two remedies simultaneously at the same time. 46. The petitioner no. 1 has filed two regular suits in the name of Pt. Raja Ram Inter College as a member and, therefore, three other members, namely, petitioners no. 2, 3 and 4 also cannot pursue the present writ petition, and so far petitioners no. 5 to 12 are concerned, we have already observed that they neither have any reason nor any cause to challenge the opening of a new institution or transfer of the land from the one institution to another. 47. We, therefore, find that in the presence of two regular suits having been filed by Pt. Raja Ram Inter College, to whom the land belonged, through member Har Vilas Tiwari, the petitioner no. 1, for cancellation of the two gift deeds, which are the subject matter of consideration in the present petition also and also for the reason that the present petition cannot be treated as Public Interest Litigation nor any relief can be granted, the Writ Petition no. 9650 (MB) of 2007 is liable to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed. The interim order stands discharged. 48. In view of the subsequent events and the reasons recorded above, we are not persuaded to entertain the Writ Petition No. 11513 (MB) of 2008, which had been filed for restraining the University from granting the permanent affiliation. 49. The Writ Petition No. 11513 (MB) of 2008, therefore, is also dismissed. 50. The interim order stands discharged. 48. In view of the subsequent events and the reasons recorded above, we are not persuaded to entertain the Writ Petition No. 11513 (MB) of 2008, which had been filed for restraining the University from granting the permanent affiliation. 49. The Writ Petition No. 11513 (MB) of 2008, therefore, is also dismissed. 50. The Writ Petition No. 11606 (MB) of 2009 also looses significance, in view of the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions, as the only grievance shown in the petition was that because of the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 9650 (MB) of 2007, the mutation application is not being disposed of by Tehsildar and permanent affiliation is not being granted by the University, which grievance, of its own, stands redressed, once the Writ Petition No. 9650 (MB) of 2007 is dismissed and the interim order is discharged. 51. We, for the reasons stated above dismiss the Writ Petitions No. 9650 (MB) of 2007 and Writ Petition No. 11513 (MB) of 2008. 52. The Writ Petition No. 11606 (MB) of 2009 is disposed of, as per the observations made above. 53. Before parting, we may clarify that the orders passed in these petitions would not have any effect upon the pending civil suits or any other proceedings, which matters would be considered and decided by the court concerned, as per its own discretion in accordance with law.