Order M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. In Review Application No.174 of 2014, the eighth respondent in W.P.No.34709 of 2013 is the applicant. In Review Application No.175 of 2014, the eighth respondent in W.P.No.4040 of 2014 is the applicant and in Review Application No.177 of 2014, the seventh respondent in W.P.No.34709 of 2013 is the applicant. In Review Application No.178 of 2014, the seventh respondent in W.P.No.4040 of 2014 is the applicant and all the applicants have filed these review applications to review the common order dated 3.6.2014, made in W.P.Nos.34709 of 2013 and 4040 of 2014, filed by the respective private respondents. 2. W.P.No.34709 of 2013 was filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 viz. the official respondents, to accommodate the children now currently studying in 'A' School, in some other recognised Central Board Secondary Education (CBSE) institution as per Section 5 of the Right To Education Act, 2009 (in short RTE Act) and further directing the respondents 7 and 8 viz. the management of Chettinad Foundation A-School, represented by its Governor/Administrator and Thiru Annamalai Chettiar, Founder of A-School Chettinad Foundation respectively, to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the harassment meted out to the parents and children and to refund the fees paid by the parents of children studying in 'A' School. 3. W.P.No.4040 of 2014 was filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the above said private respondents to issue valid Transfer Certificate to the wards of the petitioners and pay adequate compensation to the petitioners. 4. This Court, after hearing the submissions of the respective learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents, Mr.G.Nagarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and Ms.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned Counsel appearing for the seventh respondent, and Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Counsel appearing for the eighth respondent, has disposed of the writ petitions and it is relevant to extract the operative portion of the order as under:- “12. In the result, both the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the official respondents to accommodate the children, who have studied in “A-Schools” run by the seventh respondent, in other recognised CBSE institutions preferably nearby to the area, in which, they are residing, in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the respondents 7 and 8 are directed to issue Transfer Certificates forthwith to all the children studied in the above said schools. The respondents 7 and 8 are further directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the parents of the wards/students admitted in A-Schools by way of interim compensation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and without prejudice to their rights and contentions and the parents of the wards/children are also at liberty to approach the competent forum for getting refund of the fees as well as for claiming further compensation. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.” 5. Now, in the present review applications, primarily, the following grounds are urged:- (i) Notices issued to the private respondents in the above said writ petitions, were received only on 26.4.2014 (Saturday), for the hearing that has to take place on Tuesday i.e., 29.4.2014, and only one working day was available to the private respondents to engage and instruct their Counsel. No adequate opportunity was afforded to them to file counter affidavits and make submissions on the merits of the writ petitions and since the time granted in the above said notices, was grossly insufficient to allow them to present the case, review applications have to be entertained. (ii) The writ petitions do not satisfy any of the requirements of Public Interest Litigation since the parents of the students, who had studied in 'A' School, had filed the writ petitions and since they sought to espouse their personal cause and not on behalf of any public cause/issue, the writ petitions ought not to have been entertained at all. (iii) The imposition of penalty/compensation on the private respondents, allegedly arising out of a purported cause of action between the third parties, in the absence of any material or finding, which would support the disregard shown to the principles of legal personality, is unsustainable. (iii) The imposition of penalty/compensation on the private respondents, allegedly arising out of a purported cause of action between the third parties, in the absence of any material or finding, which would support the disregard shown to the principles of legal personality, is unsustainable. (iv) This Court has no jurisdiction to award compensation for the alleged breach of contractual obligations by private persons and the jurisdiction is limited to the performance of public duties and no public duty/responsibility was cast upon the review applicants/private respondents. (v) The power to award compensation is also extraordinary and to be used extremely and sparingly in cases where the recourse to normal civil remedies would be ineffective. (vi) All bonafide arrangements have been made to secure admission for the students studying in 'A' Schools, in other Schools imparting education in CBSE, ICSE, International and State Boards, and the said fact was not brought to the knowledge of this Court. The fact that it could not be possible to get recognition in terms of Section 19(2) of the Right to Education Act, for getting approval has not been taken into consideration at all. (vii) The academic year begins in June, 2014, and admissions were commenced only in May, 2014, and even prior to the commencement of the said period, the writ petitions were filed during December, 2013, without waiting and seeing the bonafide steps taken by the review applicants/private respondents. 6. Heard the submissions of Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Advocate and Mr.Mohan Parasaran, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Counsel appearing for the review applicants in Review Application Nos.174, 175 and 178 of 2014, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms.A.L.Gandhimathi, learned Counsel appearing for the review applicant in Review Application No.177 of 2014, Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 10 in Review Application Nos.174 and 177 of 2014, Ms.A.Arulmozhi, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5 in Review Application Nos.175 and 178 of 2014, Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.K.Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the official respondents viz. Respondents 11 to 14 in Review Application Nos.174 and 177/2014 and Respondents 6 to 9 in Review Application Nos.175 and 178/2014 and Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.16 in Review Application Nos.174 and 177/2014 and respondent No.11 in Review Application Nos.175 and 178/2014. 7. Respondents 11 to 14 in Review Application Nos.174 and 177/2014 and Respondents 6 to 9 in Review Application Nos.175 and 178/2014 and Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.16 in Review Application Nos.174 and 177/2014 and respondent No.11 in Review Application Nos.175 and 178/2014. 7. The respective learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicants, put forth their arguments based on the grounds raised in the review applications, and would contend that the writ petitions filed by the private respondents, cannot be termed as Public Interest Litigations as they only espouse the cause of their children, who were studying in 'A' Schools, run by the 7th respondent in the above said writ petitions, and even assuming without admitting that they are entitled to get compensation for the alleged lapse committed by the management, only the writ petitioners/private respondents herein, who had approached the Court, alone are entitled to compensation and therefore, the order passed by this Court directing the private respondents jointly and severally to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/-each to all the parents of the students, who had studied in the School, on the face of it, is unsustainable. 8. The respective learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicants, on the merits of the case, would contend that for starting 'A' School, which is in the CBSE standard, minimum recognition is not at all necessary and only for continuing education beyond VI Standard alone, such a recognition is necessary and the management of 'A' School made all sincere efforts to get recognition; but, they were unable to get piece of land and therefore, decided to close down the institution and also informed the parents and took out all efforts and made all arrangements to admit the students in reputed Schools and also issued Transfer Certificates to them and almost all students had joined other reputed institutions and the said fact may also be taken into consideration for ordering these review applications. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the counter affidavit of the seventh respondent in W.P.No.4040/2014/applicant in Review Application Nos.177 and 178/2014 and the additional affidavits filed by the applicant in Review Application Nos.174 and 175/2014/8th respondent in the above said writ petitions as well as to the common typed-set of documents. 9. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the counter affidavit of the seventh respondent in W.P.No.4040/2014/applicant in Review Application Nos.177 and 178/2014 and the additional affidavits filed by the applicant in Review Application Nos.174 and 175/2014/8th respondent in the above said writ petitions as well as to the common typed-set of documents. 9. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant in Review Application No.177/2014, has also drawn the attention of this Court to the decisions reported in (2005) 10 SCC 1 (S.P.S.RATHORE V. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS); (2006) 9 SCC 524 (NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SAMITI) and (2010) 1 SCC 234 (BHARAT AMRATLAL KOTHARI AND ANOTHER V. DOSUKHAN SAMADKHAN SINDHI AND OTHERS), and would submit that the compensation can be awarded by this Court in exercise of it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only in case of violation of fundamental rights and such a course could be sparingly used and the facts projected in the writ petitions, do not warrant award of compensation to all parents and in any event, the compensation should have been ordered only to the writ petitioners/private respondents herein, who approached the Court. 10. 10. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan and Ms.A.Arulmozhi, respective learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents, have invited the attention of this Court to the earlier order dated 28.10.2011, passed in W.P.No.20336 of 2011, and reported in (2011) 8 MLJ 809 (V.KRISHNAMOORTHY AND OTHERS V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS) and would submit that the above said writ petition was filed by 13 parents of the students studying in 'A' School Chettinad Foundation, situated at 18th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to take legal action to discontinue the functioning of the Units of 'A' School Chettinad Foundation and to direct the respondents 7 and 8 therein/review applicants herein to return the fees amount collected from them, with compensation fixed by this Court and the learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents therein, made the very same submissions as that of the submissions made in these review applications, and it was rejected and this Court has passed a detailed order observing that the petitioners therein have made out a case for taking appropriate action against 36 Schools and the private respondents 7 and 8 therein/review applicants herein and further directed the officials to initiate action in terms of relevant provisions and therefore, it is not open to the review applicants to contend otherwise. 11. Insofar as the submission made by the respective learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicants, that it is not a Public Interest Litigation and therefore, the compensation cannot be ordered, it is the submission of the respective learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents, that the fact remains that the order in W.P.No.20336 of 2011 came to be passed as early as on 28.10.2011, and the 7th respondent under the guise of getting recognition, had also collected fees for the subsequent academic year and under the guise of conducting parent-teachers meeting, had abused and harassed them and thereby, putting question mark over the future of young children. It is further contended that knowing pretty well that 'A' Schools run by the seventh respondent, had no recognition at all, it continued to run the Schools, collected exorbitant fees and also used the name of Chettinad Foundation, which is running some of the reputed Schools in Chennai City, and when the parents of the students insisted that their wards should be given admission in the recognised Schools run by Chettinad Foundation, such a reasonable request was bluntly refused and the parents were forced to admit students far away from their place of residence and they were also made to shift the residence to places, which are located nearby to the Schools, in which their wards were admitted, and taking into consideration all the material facts only, minimum compensation was ordered to be paid and in the operative portion of the impugned order, it has also been made clear that the said interim compensation has to be paid without prejudice to the rights of either parties. 12. Lastly, it is contended by the respective learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents, that the scope of review is very much limited and since there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order disposing of the writ petitions, the present review applications are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 13. This Court paid its anxious consideration and best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 14. As pointed out in the earlier paragraphs, 13 parents of the students studying in 'A' School Chettinad Foundation, situated at Ashok Nagar, had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20336/2011. In the said writ petition, the review applicants herein were arrayed as respondents 7 and 8 respectively and Mr.Sathish Parasaran, learned Counsel appearing for them, made submissions and the same are extracted in paragraph No.12 of the said order and it is as follows:- “12. Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Counsel for the respondents 7 and 8 submitted that more than 3,397 students are undergoing their education from pre-KG to II Standard and only 13 parents of students are before this Court seeking action against the management. Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Counsel for the respondents 7 and 8 submitted that more than 3,397 students are undergoing their education from pre-KG to II Standard and only 13 parents of students are before this Court seeking action against the management. The learned Counsel contended that the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder are not applicable as the respondents 7 and 8 are running the institutions under the CBSE pattern, which contemplates submission of application for affiliation only when the school is having Standard VI and above. The learned Counsel further submitted that as per Section 19(2) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Act 35 of 2009) if the schools are established before the commencement of the said Act, which has not fulfilled the norms and standards, can fulfil the same within a period of three years from the date of commencement and therefore the respondents 7 and 8 are having one more year to satisfy the norms and till such time 36 schools can be allowed to be continued. The learned Counsel further submitted that the management will apply for building licence and also apply for fixing of fee structure for 36 schools before the Fee Committee appointed by the State Government and for that purpose, sufficient time may be given to the respondents 7 and 8 to satisfy the norms and standards and get appropriate orders from the competent authority.” 15. It is the stand of the private respondents therein/review applicants herein, in the above said writ petition, that 36 Schools were established in the year 2009 and they have not filed any application for permission/recognition/affiliation either before the authorities of the State Government or before the Central Board of Secondary Education and only when the School commences Standard No.VI, the managements are required to apply for affiliation with CBSE and No Objection Certificate from the State Government. 16. The learned Judge, based on the said submission, has also formulated a question “whether the respondents 7 and 8 therein are justified in establishing 36 Schools in Chennai City i.e., within the State of Tamil Nadu, and whether they can continue without any permission and recognition order from the competent authority upto V Standard ?” 17. 16. The learned Judge, based on the said submission, has also formulated a question “whether the respondents 7 and 8 therein are justified in establishing 36 Schools in Chennai City i.e., within the State of Tamil Nadu, and whether they can continue without any permission and recognition order from the competent authority upto V Standard ?” 17. The learned Judge has extracted CBSE Affiliation Bye-laws, Sections 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Recognition) Act, 1973 and Sections 2(n), 18 and 19 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) and in paragraph Nos.27 and 29, held as follows:- “27. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 will apply to schools duly established with permission and recognition, having regard to the definition of school mentioned in Section 2(n). It is an enabling provision to the existing recognised schools to fulfill the new norms to continue recognition. The respondents 7 and 8 herein are admittedly running 36 schools from the year 2009 without any permission or recognition from any authority. The said 36 schools are not schools coming within the definition of Section 2(n) of Act 35 of 2009. Therefore, three years time given in sub-section (2) of Section 19 has no application to 36 schools managed by the respondents 7 and 8. Consequently, the submission made by the learned Counsel for respondents 7 and 8 to that effect is rejected. 29. Section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings Licence Act, 1965, defines “public buildings” which means any building used as a School (including a tutorial college) or University or other educational institution. The respondents 7 and 8 are admittedly running 36 schools upto Standard II in 36 rental buildings and the said buildings are definitely coming within the definition of public building. Section 3 mandates getting licence from the competent authority for using any building as a public building and application for licence is required to be submitted under Section 4. Thereafter, the appropriate authority will conduct inspection under Section 5 and satisfy regarding the structural soundness of the building and whether necessary precautions have been taken for having access to such buildings. Thereafter, the appropriate authority will conduct inspection under Section 5 and satisfy regarding the structural soundness of the building and whether necessary precautions have been taken for having access to such buildings. Therefore, for running a school in any building on lease building, licence under the said Act (Tamil Nadu act 13 of 1965) is mandatory and it will be given only for a period of three years subject to renewal on verifying the structural soundness of the building. For all the 36 schools, respondents 7 and 8 have not even applied for building licence as required under the said statutory provision. Therefore, the respondents 7 and 8 are running 36 schools in violation of the said statutory provisions, which enactment was made bearing in mind the safety of school going children and staff members. To be more precise, to prevent incidents happened in Sri Krishna School at Kumbakonam, where 93 children were burnt alive.” 18. Insofar as infrastructural facilities are concerned, the learned Judge in paragraph No.30, has observed that the respondents 7 and 8/review applicants herein are not even able to contend that the schools are having all infrastructural and instructional facilities. In paragraph No.37, it was observed that in respect of collection of fees by 36 schools, the school fee is not fixed by the Fee Committee constituted by the State Government, and also took a note of the submission made by the learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents, that since 36 schools run by the respondents 7 and 8/review applicants herein are not recognised under the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act and Rules, Fee Committee has not fixed any fee to be collected from the students. It is also relevant to extract paragraph No.40 of the said order as under:- “40. In short, the contention of the respondents 7 and 8 seems to be that they will not be subjected to any law till the schools are admitting students in VI standard and above and they can collect any amount of fee as they think and no one is vested with any jurisdiction to interfere in their 36 schools which are established and is being administered from 2009 onwards. The said contention is definitely in violation of the statutory provisions stated supra and the respondents 1 to 4 who are the controlling authorities of school education in Tamil Nadu are bound to initiate action in accordance with law.” 19. It is to be pointed out at this juncture, that the said order came to be passed in W.P.No.20336/2011 [ (2011) 8 MLJ 809 ] on 28.10.2011, and the counter affidavit of the seventh respondent would disclose that they have taken all earnest steps to get permission from the concerned authorities in running the School so as to start the process of getting recognition from CBSE later in point of time on commencement of Standard No.VI, when only such an application could be filed and also would further disclose that since they could not continue the existing institutions for want of long lease of more than 30 years in respect of the buildings and other reasons, they have decided to close down the Schools and it was decided in October, 2013, to close the Schools and they informed the parents of the students. 20. The Trustee of 'A' School has addressed a letter dated 9.1.2012, to the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai District, which is available at page No.112 of the typed-set of documents, filed in Review Application Nos.177 and 178/2014, and it is relevant to extract the same as under:- “Dear Madam, Sub: Extension of time and ongoing completion of certifications-reg. Ref: Your letter no. Rc 5964/b4/2011 dt 19.12.2011. We acknowledge the receipt of your above mentioned communication. We wish to inform you that we are making the best of our efforts to meet with every level of officials to complete the process of obtaining the certificates that are necessary for making the application. We have attached a statement showing the position as on 9th Jan 2012. We have obtained, 1. Building Stability certificates 32 out of 36 2. NOC from Fire and rescue department 27 out of 36 3. Sanitary certificates 19 out of 36 4. Building license 1 out of 36 Due to several reasons including the non-formation of certain offices after the Corporation elections, there is delay in getting the sanitary certificates. We are pursuing the matter and would hopefully complete it once the officials are in place. Sanitary certificates 19 out of 36 4. Building license 1 out of 36 Due to several reasons including the non-formation of certain offices after the Corporation elections, there is delay in getting the sanitary certificates. We are pursuing the matter and would hopefully complete it once the officials are in place. As would be seen from the above status report, we have been making progress every day in the process of obtaining the certificates. Once these are obtained, we would be able to apply for the approval under The code for approved nursery and primary schools, Tamilnadu as informed to us. Kindly look into the matter and do the needful. For A School Trustee Cc: Director of Elementary Education, Chennai.” 21. A perusal of the said letter would disclose that the Building Stability Certificates were obtained for 32 Schools out of 36 Schools; No Objection Certificates from Fire and Rescue Department were obtained for 27 Schools out of 36 Schools; Sanitary Certificates were obtained for 19 Schools out of 36 Schools and only one Building License has been obtained out of 36 Schools and it is further stated in the said letter, that on account of non-formation of certain offices after the Corporation Elections, there is a delay in getting the Sanitary Certificates. However, the said letter is silent about the want of Building License for remaining 35 Schools out of 36 Schools run by them and it is a very important condition as safety of the children and staff are involved in the event of any mishap. 22. It is also to be pointed out at this juncture, that in the earlier writ petition also, the very same stand was taken and was rejected by the learned Judge in the above said decision and the said judgment has also reached finality. 23. The eighth respondent curiously took a stand that though he is the founder of the Trust, his role was that of a Trustee with responsibilities that were limited to ensuring that the objectives of the Trust were abided by at all times and he was never in-charge of starting or setting up even a single School let alone several of them and there was never any indication or assurance by anybody that the children would be moved to Chettinad Vidyashram, which is also run by Chettinad Foundation. The eighth respondent also took a stand that while admitting the children in 36 A' Schools, the parents were informed and knew that the Schools did not have affiliation from the CBSE and such affiliation could be obtained only subsequently and fees were also paid with full knowledge of the above said fact and knowing pretty well about the said fact only, the parents had illegally sent their children to 'A' Schools after seeing the quality and class of services rendered by them, to bring up and move the children. In the considered opinion of the Court, the stand taken by the private respondents 7 and 8/review applicants herein, on the face of it, is unsustainable as the very same stand was taken by them in W.P.No.20336/2011 and it was rejected outright in the above said judgment. 24. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant in Review Application No.177/2014, would vehemently contend that the requirements of Public Interest Litigation have not at all been met as the parents of the students espouse their personal cause only and not the general cause and therefore, compensation ought not to have been awarded and placed reliance on the above cited decisions. The above cited decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicant in Review Application No.177/2014, laid down the proposition that the petitions raising complex question of fact should not be entertained and compensation can be awarded for violation of fundamental rights in public law domain. There cannot be any difficulty with regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited decisions. 25. It is to be pointed out at this juncture, that the right to primary education is a fundamental right and though it is the vehement submission of the respective learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicants, that the parents were made known about the non-obtaining of the recognition and willingly admitted their wards in the Schools, no tenable material has been produced to show that the parents of the wards were informed of the same. 26. 26. The review applicants herein/private respondents even after getting the adverse verdict in W.P.No.20336/2011 [ (2011) 8 MLJ 809 ], should have taken sincere steps to get recognition and the letter of 'A' School cited above, discloses that they got Building Licence only for one building out of 36 educational units, in which the Schools were run, and therefore, it cannot be termed as a genuine effort in getting recognition for the Schools and as already pointed out in the earlier paragraph, the very same stand that they have to get recognition only if the School commences VI Standard, was considered in detail and rejected in the above cited judgment. 27. Since it is a specific stand of the review applicants/private respondents 7 and 8 that without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing, the writ petitions came to be disposed of on merits, this Court permitted the 7th respondent to file it's counter affidavit in W.P.No.4040/2014 and also permitted the 8th respondent to file additional affidavits in Review Application Nos.174 and 175/2014 and afforded them with full hearing. 28. Insofar as the point urged by the respective learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicants, that compensation ought not to have been awarded to all the parents, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2011 AIR SCW 3569 (ABHYUDYA SANSTHA V. UNION OF INDIA), has awarded a compensation of Rs.1 lakh to each student and the students, who had passed their examination, were held to be ineligible to get appointment for the reason that the concerned educational institutions, which were admitting the students, have failed to get recognition and affiliation. In the considered opinion of the Court, the similar modus operandi was also adopted by the management of 'A' Schools, which are run by the Trust viz. Chettinad Foundation, in which the eighth respondent is admittedly a Trustee. In the considered opinion of the Court, the similar modus operandi was also adopted by the management of 'A' Schools, which are run by the Trust viz. Chettinad Foundation, in which the eighth respondent is admittedly a Trustee. The review applicants, on account of the above said acts, played with the life of children of tender age and made their parents to run from pillar to post and in the process, put them to stress and mental agony and taking into consideration the said fact, this Court thought fit to award compensation of Rs.15,000/- each to the parents of the wards/students and in paragraph No.12 of the impugned common order also, made it very clear that it is only interim compensation without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the review applicants/private respondents 7 and 8. 29. In the considered opinion of the Court, there is no patent error or mistake of law in the impugned common order and sufficient reasons were assigned as to the award of compensation. The review applications lack merit and are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed. 30. Respondents 12 to 15 shall ensure that students studied in 'A' Schools are accommodated in other Schools and also monitor and take action against Schools running without recognition and proper infrastructure facilities.