Judgment :- 1. Neelaram Matriculation Higher Secondary School has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court with prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 05.07.2011, issued vide Na.Ka.No.325/2011, with consequential relief of directing the respondents to grant renewal of recognition to the petitioner school. 2. The petitioner School was established as Matriculation School with standard VI and VII in the year 1988. The formal permission for standard VI and VII was granted vide order dated 19.09.1988 and temporary recognition was granted on 23.08.1989. 3. Subsequently, the school was granted permission for starting standard VIII on 09.01.1991 for the academic year 1990-1991, followed by an order of temporary recognition on 24.01.1992. Thereafter, temporary recognition was granted for IX and X for the academic year 1991-1992 and 1992-1993. 4. The school was subsequently upgraded as Higher Secondary School with temporary recognition. The temporary recognition given to the school was renewed periodically by the respondents after inspection, on verification of infrastructural facility to be as per the orders of the recognition. 5. The last renewal of temporary recognition was on 29.04.2009. It was noted in the temporary recognition, that on inspection certain defects with regard to infrastructural facilities was noticed, which had not been rectified. Accordingly, directions were issued to the petitioner not to admit the students after 01.06.2009 and students studying in the school were directed to be transferred to other recognized schools. The submission of petitioner is that deficiencies pointed out, were actually not in existence, and whatever deficiency was found was rectified and intimated to the respondents. 6. It was in view of rectification of deficiencies pointed out, that in spite of the order restraining the petitioner from admitting the students after 01.06.2009, an order was passed by the respondents, permitting the petitioner to run the classes for the subsequent academic year also. The students were also allowed to write the Board Examinations. 7. The petitioner subsequently forwarded a proposal for renewal of recognition for the classes from LKG to XII standard for the period 01.06.2009 to 31.12.2012, with all necessary relevant documents, required for renewal of recognition. It was pointed out by the petitioner, that all the defects stated in the order dated 29.04.2009 stood rectified except for the minimum land area. 8. The petitioner subsequently forwarded a proposal for renewal of recognition for the classes from LKG to XII standard for the period 01.06.2009 to 31.12.2012, with all necessary relevant documents, required for renewal of recognition. It was pointed out by the petitioner, that all the defects stated in the order dated 29.04.2009 stood rectified except for the minimum land area. 8. It was submitted by petitioner, that condition with regard to land area stood relaxed by the State Government vide Government Order No.238 of 2008. It was also pointed out by petitioner, that the condition regarding the land used, was not a statutory regulation, governing the recognition, therefore, was not mandatory condition so as to deny recognition to the school. 9. The Inspector of Matriculation Schools / respondent no.2 passed an order dated 09.02.2011, asking for clarification of certain queries. The queries asked for were replied by petitioner on 25.05.2011, by making it clear, that all the defects stated in the letter dated 09.02.2011, stood complied with and request was made for renewal of recognition. 10. The second respondent thereafter visited the school for inspection to verify the rectification of defects, but without carrying on any inspection, issued the impugned order dated 05.07.2011, returning the proposal for renewal of recognition by referring to some other defects, which were neither pointed out earlier nor were in existence. 11. The defects pointed out in the impugned order read as under: "1) School is functioning in two different places within 100 Meter gap. 2) Since the school is located in the Municipal limit, it requires land for 10 grounds. But, the school is owning only 12396 sq.ft., land (5= ground) 3) All class rooms are constructed lesser than 400 sq.ft. 4) Physics Laboratory is constructed in ACC sheet (23 x 12 size) 5) Chemistry Laboratory is constructed in 300 sq.ft., and Biology Laboratory is constructed in 200 sq.ft. 6) One class room and Principal room is constructed in ACC sheet in S.No.241/7. Further, a long room under ACC room (15 X 33 size) has been divided into three class rooms by way of partition in the same building." 12. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, filed this writ petition, on the ground, that the defects pointed out in the impugned order do not exist, except for the defect no.2 with regard to the ground area. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, filed this writ petition, on the ground, that the defects pointed out in the impugned order do not exist, except for the defect no.2 with regard to the ground area. It is submitted, that as regards defect no.2 is concerned, it cannot be a basis for denial of recognition in view of the extension of time by the State Government, and in view of the fact that the requirement of the ground area is not statutory, as it is not covered under regulations framed under the Education Code, for grant of recognition to the School. 13. On notice, counter has been filed by the respondents, wherein the impugned order is defended, by submitting as under: "8) It is submitted that the respondents verified and inspected the petitioner's school for further recognition, after inspection it is found that the petitioners are not complied with the rules and norms as prescribed, to give such recognition. a) The Petitioner's has another school in the same name within 100 meter of the area. Which the school not recognized. b) There is no proper sanitation facilities. c) There are eight teachers who are not having adequate qualification and not properly trained to teach the students. d) In 11th and 12th, there are only 5 to 6 students in each class, below the strength Prescribed to Enroll. e) There is no proper Play Ground for the students." 14. The reading of para-8, referred to above, clearly shows, that these were not the grounds pointed out by the respondents, in rejecting the application for recognition. It is not open to the respondents to defend the impugned order on altogether different grounds than, the one pointed out in the impugned order under challenge. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the contention, that para-8 cannot be read in support of the order, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, ( AIR 1978 SC 851 ), wherein it has been held as under: "8.) The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ) (at p.18): "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in Ms mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older, A Caveat." 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also challenged the order of rejection, on the ground, that action of the respondents is totally arbitrary, therefore, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution, as the proposal has been rejected repeatedly, by taking different grounds every time. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Al-Karim Educational Trust and another vs. State of Bihar and others, ( AIR 1996 SC 1469 ), holding therein as under: "12.) In the totality of the circumstances disclosed in the case and having regard to the fact that at each stage new deficiencies are being pointed out, the latest being the report dated 28.6.95 (explained by the subsequent affidavit of the appellants dated 4.9.95), we are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt, that the deficiencies have been substantially complied with and minor deficiencies pointed out in the last mentioned report of 28.6.95 are not such as to permit withholding of the affiliation to which the appellants' institution is entitled, From the manner in which the deficiencies have been pointed out from time to time, each time the old deficiencies are shown to have been removed, new deficiencies are shown, gives the impression that the affiliation is unnecessarily delayed. For the removal, of the minor deficiencies pointed out in the report of 28.6.95, a compliance affidavit dated 4.9.1995 is filed. For the removal, of the minor deficiencies pointed out in the report of 28.6.95, a compliance affidavit dated 4.9.1995 is filed. Once the institution feels secure on the question of affiliation, we have no doubt that these minor deficiencies, if they exist, shall be taken care of by those in charge of the institution. For taking such further steps, the grant of affiliation need not wait. We make this position clear. The steps for the grant of affiliation to the appellants' institution may now be expedited and we direct the respondents to issue the necessary orders without loss of time. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs." 17. In order to give opportunity to the respondents to point out the real defects, the respondents were permitted to file additional affidavit to justify their action in repeatedly rejecting the application of petitioner. In spite of repeated adjournments, no additional affidavit was filed. On the last occasion, on the request of learned Additional Government Pleader, last opportunity was granted. Even today, the respondents have not chosen to file additional affidavit to support the impugned order. 18. Learned Additional Government Pleader in support of the impugned order contended, that the order has been passed for the welfare of students. However, he is unable to dispute the fact, that grounds given in the impugned order for rejection of the recognition are altogether different, from the one pointed out in para-8 of the counter. 19. The impugned order read with counter only shows, that the respondents have not acted fairly in dealing with the case of petitioner, and a deliberate attempt has been made to harass the petitioner on one pretext or other, as on every occasion, different grounds are taken to deny renewal of recognition, though admittedly school is running since 1988. 20. The ground of non possession of ground area, is not available to the respondents to reject the claim of petitioner, in view of the Government instructions, extending the time for acquiring additional area, in case of schools, which are running in the Municipal area. The impugned order, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be for the welfare of the students as contended by the State. 21. The impugned order, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be for the welfare of the students as contended by the State. 21. The impugned order, therefore, can be safely said to be totally arbitrary, thus, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not sustainable in law. 22. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The case is remitted back to the respondent no.2, to consider the case of petitioner for grant of recognition strictly in accordance with the regulation. In case, there are any defects, then a positive order to be passed, to rectify the irregularity, so that the life of students is not spoiled, as the school is being run since 1988 under the recognition granted by respondents. 23. Keeping in view, that the respondents have harassed the petitioner by taking new grounds every time to reject the request, the petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs of this writ petition, which is assessed as Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only). It shall be open to the State Government to recover this amount after payment to petitioner from Officer responsible for the harassment. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.