JUDGMENT : Annexure-17 is the order passed by the Special Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar. The decision is dated 30.01.2015 and this decision has been taken and communicated to the petitioner in the background of a previous direction issued by the High Court in CWJC No.1291 of 2014. 2. The matter relates to recognition to be granted by the State to what is known as Tara Mehta Sant Kabir High School. 3. The prayer of the petitioner for such recognition has been rejected. The reason for rejection has been crystallized in the second last paragraph of the order in the following terms which is reproduced hereinbelow:- ^^vr,o izlaxk/khu fo|ky; dks fcgkj vjktdh; laLd`r fo|ky; ¼izLohd`fr ,oa 'kÙksZa½ fu;ekoyh 1993 ds izko/kku ds vuqlkj Hkwfe vyx&vyx VqdM+ksa esa caVs gksus rFkk oknh dks dkykUrj esa izkIr dqy 56 fMŒ Hkwfe egkefge jkT;iky egksn; ds uke fucaf/kr ugha jgus ds dkj.k izLohd`fr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA** 4. It is evident that there is a statute in place which lays down the parameters which is required for conferment of any recognition as well as affiliation by the State Government. The rule in question is of the year 1993 and has not undergone much change in this regard. The relevant rule has also been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the writ application. 5. If the facts are not disputed with regard to the finding so given by the Special Director in the impugned order with regard to the location of the two pieces of land not being continuous but spread a long distance and further the land in question not having been registered in the name of His Excellency, the Governor of Bihar, which is also mandated and ordained in the said rule then the reason for such rejection cannot be said to be erroneous, irrational or arbitrary. 6. Since the Court is exercising power of judicial review, the judicial review has its limitations with regard to a decision so taken if it does not suffer from other vices. 7. The Court will not compel the respondent authorities to grant recognition if the petitioner has tried to some how demonstrate that he has succeeded in fulfilling the requirements by even twisting the interpretation or the facts with regard to the necessity of land being one piece and parcel or to register in the name of His Excellency. 7. The Court will not compel the respondent authorities to grant recognition if the petitioner has tried to some how demonstrate that he has succeeded in fulfilling the requirements by even twisting the interpretation or the facts with regard to the necessity of land being one piece and parcel or to register in the name of His Excellency. The Court will not substitute its wisdom over and above of the executive authority especially if it does not suffer from any infirmity. 8. Writ application has no merit. It is dismissed.