JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner educational institution is run by Seth Jugaldas Ganeriwala Charitable Trust and initially it was recognised by the Education Department for imparting education upto 6th standard. Subsequently, the school was upgraded and it was recognised for imparting education upto 8th standard. The institution in the name of Shri Raghunath International School is in existence since 2006 and has earned its reputation at Ratangarh, District Churu for imparting quality education. At no point of time, the institution has projected itself as a Government institution, nor has it ever claimed any advantage by using the word "international". The name and style of the institution as international school thus continued without any demur since 2006. In the year 2013, the Principal of institution made endeavour for its upgradation upto 10th Standard and in this connection the teacher of the institution Mr. Shyam Mehrishi personally visited the office of District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Churu on 10th of August 2013 with the requisite documents but in the office concerned authority was not available. Subsequent thereto, Mr. Mehrishi again visited on 12th and 23rd of August 2013 but the same has not yielded the desired result. However, on 23rd of August 2013 the officials of the department advised Mr. Mehrishi to complete some of the formalities. He was advised to bring one D.D. for Rs. 50,000 in favour of Balika Shiksha Foundation and another D.D. worth Rs. 7,500 in favour of District Education Officer, Churu. According to the instructions, the requisite demand drafts were prepared and Mr. Shyam Mehrishi visited District Education Office, Churu on 27th of August 2013 but none was available on that day. Thereafter, on 30th of August 2013 yet again he paid visit to the office and deposited the application for recognition/upgradation of the institution upto 10th standard. According to the version of the petitioner, after submission of the requisite application, no steps were taken by the respondents for more than 10 days and therefore in order to ascertain the progress in the matter when its authorised representative Mr. Mehrishi visited office of third respondent, he was orally informed that request of the institution for its upgradation can be acceded to if the institution is prepared to remove the word "international". While conveying the said message, the papers submitted by the petitioner institution for upgradation were returned back to the authorised representative. Mehrishi visited office of third respondent, he was orally informed that request of the institution for its upgradation can be acceded to if the institution is prepared to remove the word "international". While conveying the said message, the papers submitted by the petitioner institution for upgradation were returned back to the authorised representative. Thereafter, without any delay, the petitioner institution sent the file to the third respondent by e-mail on 14th of September 2013. In response to the said application, which was sent by email, the petitioner institution was conveyed by the third respondent on 18th of September 2013 that the application submitted for upgradation by the petitioner institution was after expiry of the date i.e. 31st August 2013, and therefore, the same cannot be processed/considered. In the letter dated 18th September 2013 the third respondent has precisely assigned two reasons for not entertaining the application of the petitioner institution for upgradation. Firstly, that the application was not submitted within the prescribed duration and secondly use of word "international" by the institution is in violation of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'). On receiving the said communication, the petitioner sent yet another communication on 3rd of October 2013 intimating the third respondent that the application with the requisite documents and D.D. was submitted within time but the same was returned back. Responding to the letter of the petitioner institution dated 3rd of October 2013, the third respondent vide letter dated 8th of October 2013 intimated the petitioner institution that file which was submitted earlier by the petitioner institution was not returned by its office but the person concerned himself has taken away file back. That apart, it was also pointed out that there was some deficiency in the amount which was tendered by the petitioner institution as the Demand Draft was worth Rs. 7,500 whereas it ought to have been of Rs. 10,000. On behalf of respondents, no formal reply has been submitted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Singhal, has argued that requisite application for up-gradation of the school was submitted within time but the same was returned back by the office of third respondent. Therefore, the so called delay which is attributed to the petitioner by the respondent is not tenable. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Singhal, has argued that requisite application for up-gradation of the school was submitted within time but the same was returned back by the office of third respondent. Therefore, the so called delay which is attributed to the petitioner by the respondent is not tenable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the objection of the respondent for up-gradation, on the ground that use of word "international" is violative of the Act of 1950, is not at all tenable inasmuch as by use of word "international" none of the provisions contained under the Act of 1950 has been violated. Learned counsel, thus, assailing the impugned order Annex. 5 and subsequent order Annex. 7, whereby the same is reiterated, has submitted that the reasons for denial of up-gradation of the institution are non est in the eye of law and cannot be sustained. 3. Per contra, Mr. B.L. Bhati has submitted that the application was belated and prima facie the use of word "international" in the name of the institution is violative of the Act of 1950. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the institution is functioning since 2006 under the name and style of Shri Raghunath International School duly recognised by the Education Department. The endeavor made by the institution for its up-gradation from 8th standard to 10th standard is ascertainable from its application Annex. 3 which was received by Addl. District Education Officer on 30th of August 2013 i.e. before the expiry of the last date which was notified as 31st of August 2013. The application Annex. 4 is dated 13th of September 2013 wherein there is a clear recital that earlier application was submitted within time but the same was returned back. Apparently, there was some misunderstanding between the representative of the institution and the officials of the third respondent and in that backdrop the paper submitted on behalf of institution were returned back. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the objection of delay for processing the application of the institution for up-gradation cannot be sustained. The other reason which is assigned in the order Annex. 5 and reiterated in Annex. 7 relates to violation of the alleged provisions of the Act of 1950. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the objection of delay for processing the application of the institution for up-gradation cannot be sustained. The other reason which is assigned in the order Annex. 5 and reiterated in Annex. 7 relates to violation of the alleged provisions of the Act of 1950. Upon perusal of Section 3 of the Act of 1950, it is crystal clear that it envisages prohibition of improper use of certain emblems and names. The complete text of Section 3 reads as under: "3. Prohibition of improper use of certain emblems and names? Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no person shall, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, use, or continue to use, for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession, or in the title of any patent, or in any trade mark or design, any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government." 6. On a bare perusal of Section 3 in conjunction with the Schedule ipso facto reveals that use of word "international" is not prohibited under Section 3 of the Act of 1950. Moreover, in the given circumstances, it cannot be said that by using name "international school" the petitioner institution has violated Section 3 and can be castigated for improper use of certain emblems and names. Thus, in totality, in my considered opinion, the reasons assigned in orders Anenx. 5 & 7 for not considering the request of the petitioner institution for its upgradation cannot be sustained and the orders Annex. 5 & 7 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner institution is at liberty to apply afresh before the competent authority for its upgradation within a period of 10 days from the date of this order and on submission of the application it is expected from the competent authority to process the application expeditiously preferably within a period of 30 days thereafter for upgradation of the institution strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by orders Annex. 5 & 7 respectively.Petition Disposed of. *******