ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners are the Secretary and the Principal Secretary of the two colleges named there in who have sought to enforce the provisions of Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Act, 2004 in its true perspective, more specifically in relation to the provision contained in Section 9 and 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is pressing the writ petition only in respect of petitioner no.1. Out of several prayers made totaling 6 in the writ petitioner, in effect petitioner contend that release of aid has not been made strictly in terms of Section 9 and 10 of the Act of 2004. These two provisions related to recurring and non-recurring grants. Petitioner also contend that appropriate guidelines or policy are not framed for such allocation. The Act of 2004 is enclosed as Annexure-1 and the Rules have been enclosed as Annexure-2. The supplementary affidavit of the petitioners filed thereafter encloses the advertisement issued by the Directorate of Secondary Education calling for applications from eligible Institutions fulfilling the criteria under the Act of 2004 for release of grant in a prescribed format satisfying all laid down conditions of the Act, Rules and the advertisement in question. The advertisement appear to be in relation to Financial year 2013-14 and 2014-15. Documents enclosed to Annexure-7 series are in a form of chart of release of grant for the year 2011-2012 to several such Intermediate Colleges including both the petitioners college. Petitioner No.1 name appears at Serial No. 38. 3. Based upon the documents enclosed, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates his submission that so far the non-recurring grant have not been released which relates to creation of infrastructure etc. it is submitted that petitioner is also aggrieved as apparently some recurring grants have also been reduced. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the institution has been asked to spend the grant received for recurring purposes towards non-recurring purposes as per Annexure-6 bearing memo no. 788 dated 5.5.2015. Petitioner is suffering due to non release of regular grant to the College. The Jharkhand Inter College Teachers Association (J.I.C.T.A.) has also raised this issue before the Director, Secondary Education through representation such as at Annexure-7 dated 29.5.2015. Petitioner has therefore been compelled to approach this Court for release of regular grants as per the scheme of the Act of 2004. 4. The Jharkhand Inter College Teachers Association (J.I.C.T.A.) has also raised this issue before the Director, Secondary Education through representation such as at Annexure-7 dated 29.5.2015. Petitioner has therefore been compelled to approach this Court for release of regular grants as per the scheme of the Act of 2004. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State and Jharkhand Academic Council submits that the Act and Rules of 2004 prescribe a standard operating procedure to be followed by the applicant-Institution who seeks to avail of the benefit of grant. They are required to make an application in a prescribed format with all relevant particulars as prescribed under the provisions of the Act of 2004, specifically under Chapter-11 and other relevant provisions. The writ petition does not encloses any such application made in prescribed format on the part of the petitioner to make out a case that grants have been withheld or reduced in any of the respective financial year. In view of the absence of all these necessary particulars, the prayer made herein is in the nature of general prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus for implementation of Section 9 and 10 of the Act of 2004, which cannot be considered in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. This writ petition is a personal aggrieved litigation where the petitioner was required to demonstrate all material particulars relating to the Institution and compliance of the statutory mandate of the Act under which it claim such benefits. It is submitted that the Department has itself resorted to prescribed procedure by issuing advertisement for entertaining such claims. Therefore, this Court should not entertain the writ petition on merit. 5. I have considered the submission of the parties and the relevant material facts pleaded. Considering the aim, object and purposes of the Act of 2004 and the Rules framed there under which relates to release of grant to unaided educational institutions, it is idle to suggest that any such institution seeking grant has to fulfill the prescribed criteria after fulfilling the required conditions from the respondent-Government. The provisions of the Act, Rules and the advertisement enclosed to the supplementary affidavit show requirement of proper application to be made for the said purpose. 6. The provisions of the Act, Rules and the advertisement enclosed to the supplementary affidavit show requirement of proper application to be made for the said purpose. 6. On mere perusal of the provisions of Act of 2004, it further indicate that the institution, who in the first place should have affiliation from Jharkhand Academic Council; should be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act; should be functional with duly constituted governing body; should be following the rules, regulations and the directions issued by the Government. Any application for grant is to be made after compliance of the prescribed procedure through the Jharkhand Academic Council within specified time. Other provisions of the Act also show that details relating to teaching activities, number of students studying in the Institution, number of teaching faculty working in the Institution, detail about its infrastructure, land etc are required to be supplied. On such release of grant, the amount is to be spent as per the conditions stipulated in the Act, such as provided in Section 5 there of. Whether the petitioner has made application for release of grant in the prescribed format after satisfying all the criteria within stipulated time through proper channel, is not evident from the documents on record as there are no applications enclosed. It is also difficult to make out from the chart enclosed to the supplementary affidavit as to whether contention of the petitioner that such recurring grant have been curtailed is justified on fact. Such an exercise therefore cannot be undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction of the Court. Rather it appears that for every financial year application are required to be made by the cut off date such as 21.10.2013 for the relevant financial year and 22.10.2014 for the subsequent financial year from the advertisement enclosed by the petitioner itself. The Act of 2004 itself provides for a remedy of appeal as per Section 12 in cases of withholding of grant, curtailment of grants or its suspension by the Managing Committee of the Institute before the State Government. 7. The Act of 2004 itself provides for a remedy of appeal as per Section 12 in cases of withholding of grant, curtailment of grants or its suspension by the Managing Committee of the Institute before the State Government. 7. On the survey of relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules of 2004, it therefore appears that petitioner, if so advised should approach the competent authority under the respondent-Department for any consideration and release of grant under any of the heads as per the procedure laid down in a prescribed format within time stipulated for the said year. Nothing more can be observed in the present writ petition. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.