JUDGMENT S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. Petitioner No.1 is a public trust which runs petitioner No. 2 – M/s. Anudatta Vidyalaya Hindu Primary School. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Education Officer, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and the Administrative Officer of the Administrative Department of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai respectively. Respondent No.4 is the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Education Department. 2. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit petitioner No.2 to grant-in-aid with effect from the first date of the application. The petitioners also seek a declaration that the policy of respondent No.4 – State of Maharashtra dated 24th November, 2011, communicated on 13th January, 2004, to respondent No.1 is unconstitutional. 3. On 25th July, 2007, the petitioners applied for grant-in-aid in respect of petitioner No.2. The request was repeated several times, upto 10th August, 2011. Respondent No.1, by a letter dated 17th September, 2011, informed the petitioners that petitioner No.2 was not included in the list of 33 schools to which financial grant was sanctioned for Standards I to IV. Accordingly, the petitioners request for grant-in-aid was rejected. 4. The petitioners relied on a circular dated 23rd January, 2002, issued by respondent No.1 which stated that 64 recognized private primary schools in the jurisdiction of respondent No.1 shall be entitled to grant-in-aid from 1st July, 2001, as per a Resolution No.141 dated 1st January, 2002, passed by respondent No.1. Till that date, the said 64 schools were running on a non-aided basis and the resolution was to meet the entire expenses for salary of employees and other administrative expenses. 5. The petitioners then relied upon a letter dated 10th August, 2004, addressed by respondent No.1 to the petitioner No.2. The letter pertained to the recognition sought by petitioner No.2 for standards I to IV. Reliance was placed on the following portion of the letter:- “XII) First temporary recognition period 01-06-2003 to 31-05-2008 vide Education Committee Resolution No.23 dated 21-06-2004 to Standard I to IV of your Hindi medium school for Girls/Boys/Co-education.” The reliance was to meet the respondents contention based on the impugned policy of 13th January, 2004, which we will refer to shortly. Pausing here, it may be mentioned that the petitioner No.1 was granted permission to open the second petitioner-school in the year 1989. Pausing here, it may be mentioned that the petitioner No.1 was granted permission to open the second petitioner-school in the year 1989. The permission, however, did not grant recognition to petitioner No.2, at least insofar as the grant-in-aid was concerned. 6. Mr. Panicker, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners raised a grievance that the petitioner No.2's name was not included for grant-in-aid despite the fact that its name was mentioned in a communication dated 21st March, 2009. Suffice it to mention at this stage that on the reverse of this document (produced in a separate compilation tendered by the petitioners), the Education Officer endorsed that a decision would be taken at the Commissioner's level. Further, certain other schools mentioned in that communication were admitted to grant-in-aid. 7. Mr. Sakhare, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 firstly relied upon the following communication from respondent No.4 – State of Maharashtra addressed to the Commissioner of the first respondent:- “Sir, As per the meeting by Cabinet Ministers of state held on 24.11.2001, it was decided not to give permission to open new institutes imparting Schools, higher and technical, agricultural and medical Education but as per recently accepted policy it was decided to give necessary permission to start institution on permanently unaided basis in private sector. As per the above mentioned date in above policy permission to start private Primary Schools on unaided basis has been started statewide. 50% of Educational Expenses of BMC run Primary Schools are funded by State Government. Similarly the right to recognition to Private Primary Schools in the Greater Mumbai area rests with the BMC. It is presume that 50% Educational Expenses of such Schools is provided by State Government. As per the decision taken by State Government it is presume from Academic Year 2001-2002, the Schools recognized by BMC in Greater Mumbai area will no longer be aided by State Government.” 8. The petitioners firstly contended that petitioner No.2 was granted recognition with effect from 1st June, 2003 and, therefore, the bar contained in the resolution dated 24th November, 2001, communicated to the respondent No.1 by the letter dated 13th January, 2004, would not operate. The submission was based on the portion of the letter dated 10th August, 2004, quoted earlier. The submission is not well founded. The submission was based on the portion of the letter dated 10th August, 2004, quoted earlier. The submission is not well founded. The recognition, although for the period commencing 1st June, 2003, was granted only on 21st June, 2004. Further, the same does not indicate that the petitioner was held entitled to grant-in-aid. 9. Faced with this, Mr. Panicker submitted that the resolution dated 24th November, 2001 is irrelevant in the present case. According to him, the letter dated 13th January, 2004, which communicates the said resolution, refers in paragraph 1 to schools outside Mumbai. Only the second paragraph of the communication dated 13th January, 2004, refers to schools within Mumbai. Further, the letter merely communicates the decision of the State Government not to contribute towards the expenses to be incurred by respondent No.1. It does not prevent respondent No.1 from disbursing the grant-in-aid on it's own. 10. Even presuming the petitioners' construction of the communication dated 13th January, 2004, to be well founded it would make no difference. The question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to grant-in-aid under any law or policy. The petitioners in this regard rely upon Rules 38, 39 and 40 of the Grant-in-aid Code for Approved Private Primary Schools in Greater Bombay, which read as under:- “Rule 38 – Allotment of Grant-in-Aid. Private Primary Schools in Greater Bombay will be aided in accordance with the rules hereinafter laid down. Rule 39 – Requirements of Registration. Schools may be registered for Grants for the first time and will continue to be so registered thereafter by the Education Committee of the Corporation provided they conform to the rules relating to recognition and Grant-in-Aid. Rule 40 – Application for Registration for Grant-in-Aid Applications for the registration of schools for Grant-in-Aid must be made in the prescribed form (Appendix II) to the Education Officer on or before the 15th December preceding the commencement (April 1st) of the official year in which the school seeks a grant. Those schools, however, of which the permanent character is recognised schools will be eligible for this purpose once for all. While only recognised schools will be eligible for grants the following additional circumstances will be taken into consideration in dealing with an application for registration for Grantin-Aid purposes:- (i) Whether the school supplies recognised need in the locality. Those schools, however, of which the permanent character is recognised schools will be eligible for this purpose once for all. While only recognised schools will be eligible for grants the following additional circumstances will be taken into consideration in dealing with an application for registration for Grantin-Aid purposes:- (i) Whether the school supplies recognised need in the locality. (ii) Whether the fees charged are within the limit prescribed; and (iii) Whether the money at the disposal of the Primary Education Department, from time to time, is adequate for meeting the demands in respect of new schools.” 11. Under Rule 39, the first registration is not a matter of right. We will presume that in the event of the registration being granted, an institution is entitled to have the registration to be continued provided it conforms to the rules relating to recognition and grant-in-aid. 12. Rule 40 makes it clear that mere recognition of a school does not entitle it to grant-in-aid. Only recognised schools would be eligible for grants but every recognised school is not entitled to the same. It is of vital importance to note that Rule 40 expressly provides that recognised schools would be eligible for grants, but the additional circumstances mentioned therein would be taken into consideration in dealing with an application for registration for grant-in-aid process. One of the conditions is whether the money at the disposal of the Primary Education Department, from time to time, is adequate for meeting the demands of new schools. Mr. Sakhare stated that after 13th January, 2004, recognition for the purpose of grant-in-aid has not been granted to any school. There is nothing on record that belies his statement. The Corporation, in view of the State Government's aforesaid policy not to disburse any grant-in-aid and upon assessing its financial condition, has decided not to grant recognition for grant-in-aid. This is a policy decision which ought not to be interfered with. There is nothing to indicate the decision to be arbitrary or unreasonable. 13. Mr. Panicker then submitted that respondent No.1 has adequate funds and that, therefore, there is no reason to deny registration for grant-in-aid. He relied upon certain details from the financial budget of respondent No.1 relating to provision and expenses for the financial years 2008-2009 to 2011-2012. 14. There is nothing to indicate the decision to be arbitrary or unreasonable. 13. Mr. Panicker then submitted that respondent No.1 has adequate funds and that, therefore, there is no reason to deny registration for grant-in-aid. He relied upon certain details from the financial budget of respondent No.1 relating to provision and expenses for the financial years 2008-2009 to 2011-2012. 14. We are afraid it is not possible on the basis of the same to come to a conclusion that the funds available with respondent No.1 are sufficient to meet any expenses on account of granting recognition for the purpose of grant-in-aid. Even assuming that there is no deficit and that there are surplus funds with respondent No.1, allocation of funds is a policy matter, subject to a policy decision which respondent No.1 alone is entitled to take. Such policy decisions ought not to be interfered with by a Writ Court, unless it is found to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Public bodies such as respondent No.1 have various commitments. It is for them to decide the priorities in this regard. A person is not entitled to allocation of funds for a given purpose merely because there are surplus funds with respondent No.1 and that the budget is not in deficit. The fallacy in the petitioner's case is that it proceeds on the erroneous basis that the surplus funds must be utilized only towards the grant-in-aid for primary schools. It hardly requires elaboration that there would be many compelling/conflicting demands from other sources on the first respondent's funds. There is nothing to indicate that the first respondent's refusal to grant registration for grant-in-aid purposes is arbitrary or illegal. 15. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.