JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Intervention application is allowed. 2. These three writ petitions raise certain common issues and relate to the same respondent educational institution and, hence, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the same by this common judgment. 3. The first of the three writ petitions is Writ Petition (PIL) No. 20 of 2015. That is filed by one Beer Singh and another. The prayers sought in the writ petition are as follows: “a. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire orders whereby the respondent no. 8 & 9 institution has been given affiliation/recognition and has been given grant in aid by the State Government. b. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action for seizing the financial power of Principal of respondent no. 9 as the respondent no. 9 is indulged in the severe financial irregularities and further said institutions is being illegally run over the public land/property.” 4. The institution, in question, is Bhagwan Shankar Inter College, Tugalpur, which is the 8th respondent in the said writ petition. The 9th respondent is the Principal, who is impleaded personally. The contention, which is taken therein essentially, is as follows: There is a land depicted by Khasra No. 479, total measuring 5.3290 hectare. It is a public property and has been entered as Banjar Bhumi. It is not a private land; but, over the said land, the eighth respondent institution is illegally being run, which is a private recognized institution. There is no legal sanction or approval in favour of the 8th respondent. In the revenue records till date, the land is shown as ‘Anya Krishi Yogya Banjar Bhumi’. The affiliation granted by the Education Department is also not sustainable. Annexure No.-2 purports to be copies of orders regarding grant-in-aid and related documents. The Principal is alleged to be interfering with the remaining land of the said Khasra and used to give the said land on lease/patta and there is no explanation that, on which fund, the money received are being deposited and repaid to the government exchequer. There is also reference to severe financial irregularity in respect of scholarship and the Principal illegally grabbed/usurp funds of scholarship. Annexure No. 3 purports to be documents pertaining to the embezzlement. There is also reference to severe financial irregularity in respect of scholarship and the Principal illegally grabbed/usurp funds of scholarship. Annexure No. 3 purports to be documents pertaining to the embezzlement. Annexure No. 4 purports to be the Memorandum of Appeal. There is also reference to one Sunil Kumar having filed O.S. No. 479, which is marked as Annexure No. 5. At this very juncture, it is not irrelevant to notice that it is brought to our notice that the said Sunil Kumar is none other than the son of the first petitioner. There is reference to violation of norms in the matter as established and petitioner is before us. 5. The next writ petition filed is Writ Petition (PIL) No. 88 of 2016. Therein the prayers are as follows: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 1 to conduct an enquiry in regard to the recognition to the Bhagwan Shankar Inter College & Bhagwan Shankar Junior High School, Tugalpur Khanpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar, on the basis of manipulate documents, without verifying its correctness and take action against those officers, how have granted the recognition on forged papers. (ii) Issued a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 1 to conduct and enquiry in regard to the embezzlement of scholarship by the respondent nos. 4, 7 & 8 and take action against them and also lodge a first information report in regard to the criminal breach of trust. (iii) Issued a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 1 to enquire about exact quantum of misappropriate of money cause by respondent nos. 7 & 8, by letting out public utility land to private contractors and further direct the respondent no. 1 to take appropriate steps to recover misappropriate amount from respondent nos. 7&8 to be deposited in gram sabha fund and the same may be used for the benefit of students of the village. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 1 to constitute a special investigation team to investigate in the matter and take legal action against the culprits. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 1 to constitute a special investigation team to investigate in the matter and take legal action against the culprits. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 2 to take management of Bhagwan Shankar Inter College and Bhagwan Shankar Junior High School in its control with immediate effect, so the education of the students does not get hampered.” 6. The said writ petition is filed by Mr. Sunil Kumar, who is, as already noted, the son of the first petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 20 of 2015 and in reference to whom certain pleadings are there, as we have noted. In the said writ petition, it is stated, inter alia, that consolidation proceedings were initiated in village Tugalpur and, during the consolidation scheme, different khasra numbers were reserved for different purposes. Khasra no. 479, measuring 5.3294 hectare, which was reserved for school, is recorded as Banjar. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma came to the village in the year 1994 and convinced the villagers to start a school in the village for education of the village and nearby village’s students. He succeeded to convince the villagers for starting of school. Villagers agreed to donate money. A committee known as ‘Moksha Dayini Ganga Siksha Sabha’ was constituted. About 400 villagers donated money; but, the villagers were agreed to construct school over the part of Khasra No. 479. Twelve rooms were constructed from the funds collected from the villagers. The said khasra was never transferred by the State Government nor the Gaon Sabha to the Bhagwan Shankar Inter College or Bhagwan Shankar Junior High School; but, for obtaining recognition, respondent submitted a copy of Khatauni and to mislead the department, the respondent no. 8 is alleged to have added the word ‘Hkxoku 'kadj’ before the word ‘Ldwy gsrq lqjf{kr’ , which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. Petitioner obtained information about the fraud. Copy of the khatauni and khasra is produced as Annexure No. 3. It is further stated that respondent nos. 7 & 8 allotted a part of the khasra to one Mr. Anoop Singh and got Rs.6,50,000/-. They have no authority to do so. Continuously, land, which is the part of khasra no. 479, is being let out by respondent nos. Copy of the khatauni and khasra is produced as Annexure No. 3. It is further stated that respondent nos. 7 & 8 allotted a part of the khasra to one Mr. Anoop Singh and got Rs.6,50,000/-. They have no authority to do so. Continuously, land, which is the part of khasra no. 479, is being let out by respondent nos. 7 & 8 to different contractors. There is also reference to respondent nos. 7 & 8 having earned lakhs of rupees by letting out land. There is further case set out that there is embezzlement of scholarship money, which is meant for the Other Backward Class, Scheduled Caste and minorities. The school is alleged to be run by the society over the land of the Gaon Sabha and it is alleged that for class VII tuition fee Rs. 300/- and other charges Rs. 150/- for five months are being charged. 7. Lastly, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 163 of 2016 was filed. Therein, the prayers are as follows: “(i.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quashing to quash government order no. 869/XVIII(II)/2016-18(172)/2015, dated 15-6-2016 to get land in question leased out in respondent no. 6 name (contained as Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition). (ii.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quashing to quash order/Letter No. 08 (03)/81/81117/2013-2014, dated 18.02.2014 i.e. recommendation made by respondent no. 3 (contained as Annexure No. 6 to this writ petition). (iii.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 not to release any fund as recommended by respondent no. 3 by its letter no. 08 (03)/81/81117/2013-2014 Dated 18th February 2014 in favour of respondent no. 6. (iv.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 1 to initiate enquiry against respondent no. 5 & 6 for committing the fund in getting land leased out in their name and getting post sanctioned in humanities and science in High School and Inter Level by using forge documents.” 8. The petitioner therein is the same petitioner, as in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 88 of 2016. 9. Pleadings have been exchanged. 10. We heard Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Amicus Curiae in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 20 of 2015. We appointed Mr. The petitioner therein is the same petitioner, as in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 88 of 2016. 9. Pleadings have been exchanged. 10. We heard Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Amicus Curiae in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 20 of 2015. We appointed Mr. A.K. Joshi to assist the Court in view of the circumstances, in which learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear. We also heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 88 of 2016 and Writ Petition (PIL) No. 163 of 2016. We have also heard Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the Society and Principal and also Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the intervener in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 163 of 2016. 11. Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Amicus Curiae in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 20 of 2015 would submit that the land, in question, belongs to the Gaon Sabha. He drew our attention to the notification which would establish that the land, over which the institution is located, clearly belongs to the Gaon Sabha. He would, therefore, point out that the recognition granted by the department was legally flawed. 12. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was manipulation in the khatauni and, as we have already noticed, there is a pleading. He would submit that there was embezzlement of scholarship amounts meant for the Backward Class, Scheduled Tribe etc. The modus operandi, according to him, was that, after the amounts were received by the society, some amounts may have been given to the deserving candidates; but, the amounts, which were made over to the society for being distributed to the deserving candidates, was retained by the society without it being made over to the Government. It is further submitted that there was illegal lease granted and gains made and, even if they have been deposited with the accounts of the society, that is absolutely illegal. 13. In fact, it is submitted by Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount, which is alleged to have been embezzled, has been returned back to the Government. 14. It is further contended that the society is charging exorbitant amount by way of fees. Mr. 13. In fact, it is submitted by Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount, which is alleged to have been embezzled, has been returned back to the Government. 14. It is further contended that the society is charging exorbitant amount by way of fees. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel would also contend that at the time recommendation was made for grant-in-aid to the institution, the institution was not having the property of its own. Even the building, according to Mr. Lok Pal Singh, was put up on the basis of the donation given by the villagers. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel would also drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Institute of Law, Chandigarh and others vs. Neeraj Sharma and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 720 . We will refer more to it later on in this judgment. 15. Per contra, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel would point out that all the three writ petitions were filed only after proceedings were afoot to give grant-in-aid to the institution. In regard to the charge of embezzlement, it is submitted that an inquiry was conducted and the report was submitted in the year 2013 that no embezzlement was found in the inquiry report. As far as the using of the land, by way of lease, is concerned, it is submitted that the inquiry did reveal that the land was being made available only for the purpose of cultivation under the supervision of the society. It is submitted that, after the institution is made grant-in-aid, the institution will have to abide by the terms and conditions. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel would submit that the inquiry was held in the year 2013 and the allegations are not correct. Mr. Paresh Tripathi would point out that, actually, the institution was given recognition and not affiliation. 16. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel would submit that before the order was passed by which the property was given on lease to the institution, there is no public notice and public property could not have been leased out in the manner it was done. He would also submit that where there is illegality, the Court should interfere. 17. Mr. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel would submit that before the order was passed by which the property was given on lease to the institution, there is no public notice and public property could not have been leased out in the manner it was done. He would also submit that where there is illegality, the Court should interfere. 17. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel would further contend that apparently Government took note of the fact that there is a running institution, as recognition was accorded to the institution from 1994. He would submit that the case of the exorbitant fees cannot be accepted, having regard to the pleading of the petitioner itself. It shows that small sums were being charged. 18. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the party respondent also submits that the matter engaged the attention of the officer viz. that the property has been mutated. Secondly, the grant-in-aid has been ordered by the proceedings dated 04.01.2017 and that is not put to challenge. He would also submit that there was no embezzlement and also that as far as giving of land on lease is concerned, that took place only for the purpose of cultivation and the amount was deposited in the account of the society. [It is also pointed out by Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel that this is not pleaded as such.] 19. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel submits that there is correction effected in the records in 2014 by the order of the Tehsildar and Appeal is pending with regard to the mutation made on the basis of the lease granted. 20. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the intervener would submit that his client is working since 1994 and he is about to retire in the month of September, 2017 and he would also submit that the order, by which the institution has been made grant-in-aid, has also not been challenged. 21. At the bar, an argument is also raised, in reply, by Mr. Lok Pal Singh that there has been no notification by which the land has been vested with the government for the government to deal with it by way of lease. 22. All these writ petitions are filed in alleged public interest. 21. At the bar, an argument is also raised, in reply, by Mr. Lok Pal Singh that there has been no notification by which the land has been vested with the government for the government to deal with it by way of lease. 22. All these writ petitions are filed in alleged public interest. Public Interest Litigation began in mid 1970’s. Public Interest Litigation has been evolved, by way of relaxing the concept of locus standi so that any person, even if he is not personally aggrieved, can approach the Court and set the law in motion. Ordinarily, when the fundamental rights or even other legal rights of a class of citizens are in danger by any action or omission on the part of the authorities under the State, it may be open to the person to alert the Writ Court and activise it in to action. Likewise, Public Interest Litigation may be initiated when any gross illegality is committed and interest of the public are jeopardized. Public Interest Litigation is a potent weapon in the hands of the Court to strike at state action, in particular, when it is in gross violation of legal rights or fundamental rights of members of the general public or a section thereof. Judicial redress even by way of Public Interest Litigation, however cannot be a panacea for all evils, even as we have evolved as legal/judicial system by way of creative judicial activism. It would be wise for the Court to remind itself that the actual world is not a perfect world. All imperfection emanating from the system, in which the Courts operate, cannot be possibly set right by the actions of the Courts. In other words, we intend to remind ourselves that, in the approach to Public Interest Litigation, the Court must also weigh in the scales, whether it is appropriate for it to interfere and ask itself the question as to whether, by interfering, it will produce more injustice and whether its action will promote the ends of justice. 23. In this case, the educational institution in question is, admittedly, in existence for more than two decades. The society was formed and it is running the institution. It is also beyond dispute that recognition was accorded to the institution more than two decades ago. 23. In this case, the educational institution in question is, admittedly, in existence for more than two decades. The society was formed and it is running the institution. It is also beyond dispute that recognition was accorded to the institution more than two decades ago. It is also not in dispute further that it was located on land, which was reserved for education purpose. These are all admitted facts. It is true that Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 provides for vesting of Government land in the Gaon Sabha. It also speaks about the Government being free to de-notify and use it for the purposes as provided. 24. The Government has chosen to give the land on lease to the society on certain conditions. This was done in the year 2016. It is also not much in dispute that, in the institution, there are nearly 650 students attending classes. It is submitted by Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir that, including Principal, there are 14 members of the staff. 25. We may ask ourselves a question as to what would be the effect of our interfering with the recommendation made to make it grant-in-aid. If the school is made grant-in-aid, necessarily, it comes under the regulatory regime of the Government. Staff would receive their salary from the State funds. There can be no gain saying that members of the staff, particularly, when they belong to the teaching community, would be able to better discharge their onerous duties when they are in receipt of better remuneration than they would get in the unaided sector. It must be, at once, noticed that the said decision is not challenged before us and, on that short ground, the writ petitions must fail. 26. We would, in fact, be intruding into the conditions of service of the staff, which would disable them from discharging their duties. Will it advance the cause of justice? In our view, no. Secondly, petitioners have made various complaints against the Principal and the institution society in terms of the embezzlement, charging exorbitant fees, granting of lease etc. We would think that when the institution comes under the regulatory regime of Government, that itself would be a big safeguard against any kind of high handedness on the part of the management. Secondly, petitioners have made various complaints against the Principal and the institution society in terms of the embezzlement, charging exorbitant fees, granting of lease etc. We would think that when the institution comes under the regulatory regime of Government, that itself would be a big safeguard against any kind of high handedness on the part of the management. As already noticed, the writ petitions are afflicted with the fatal blemish, namely, that there is no challenge to the decision dated 04.01.2017 to make the institution an aided institution and a decision, be it void, unless it is called in question, cannot be interfered with. Therefore, we must proceed on the basis that after the recommendation was made, it blossomed into a decision to make it an aided institution. It is to be noticed that it is before the institution was made an aided institution that by way of lease, the respondent institution society was able to get lease of the land. Now, it is apposite for us to refer to the judgment relied on by Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel. The said case arose from the writ petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where the appellant institute was allotted a plot of land. It was purported to be done by the Chandigarh Administration under the Punjab Development Regulation Act and the notification, which was issued thereunder. It is significant to notice that the Court, in fact, sounded a caution that Public Interest Litigation should be used with great care and circumspection for delivering social justice to the citizens. More importantly, we notice that it is the case, where the allotment was given to the appellant for the purpose of starting an institution. The lease was for 99 years. Here, in this case, as we have already noticed, the institution has been running for the past more than two decades. 27. It is also noteworthy that there is no specific pleading that there was no public notice issued before the land was leased to the respondent. As far as the instant case is concerned, the lease is not done under any statutory provision like the one, which was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, namely, allotment of land to the educational institution, schools etc. on lease hold basis in Chandigarh Scheme, 1996, as was the case therein. 28. As far as the instant case is concerned, the lease is not done under any statutory provision like the one, which was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, namely, allotment of land to the educational institution, schools etc. on lease hold basis in Chandigarh Scheme, 1996, as was the case therein. 28. We cannot lose sight of the totality of facts, which includes the fact that the institution has been running for the past two decades on the very same land. The land, indeed, from the beginning, was reserved for educational purpose. 29. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner has chosen to approach the Court only in 2015 (first writ petition) and, thereafter, by way of two writ petitions in 2016. The institution has been operating for the last two decades. As far as Writ Petition (PIL) No. 20 of 2015 is concerned, the prayer in the writ petition is to interfere with the recognition and affiliation of the institution. 30. We would think that there is great deal of delay and the same, in our view, would amount to laches in approaching this Court. We would think that any interference with the affiliation/recognition, at this length of time, may not be just. 31. As far as the issue relating to embezzlement is concerned, this engaged the attention of the authorities and an inquiry was held. It revealed that the charge of embezzlement is not correct. It is pointed out by Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel that it has come in the enquiry report that the amount has been returned. 32. In regard to the use of the land for cultivation purpose by way of lease, it is pointed out that the entire amount, which was realized by way of cultivation under the supervision of the society, has been deposited in the account of the society. This is not a case where there is complaint of embezzlement for the private use of the office bearers of the society. So far as charging fees is concerned, the amount, which is said to be charged, in the region of Rs. 300/- at a time when the institution was not a grant-in-aid institution. 33. We do not think, we should consider it, particularly, in view of the development that the institution has now become a grant-in-aid institution. So far as charging fees is concerned, the amount, which is said to be charged, in the region of Rs. 300/- at a time when the institution was not a grant-in-aid institution. 33. We do not think, we should consider it, particularly, in view of the development that the institution has now become a grant-in-aid institution. As regards the case that there was manipulation of khatauni, there is mutation recorded now. At any rate, we do not intend to enter in the facts of this case granting relief to the petitioner on the said score; but we hasten to add that this would be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners if the petitioners in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 163 of 2016 and Writ Petition (PIL) No. 88 of 2016 are to continue to take proceedings that have been initiated before the competent forum or institute fresh proceedings. Equally, if there is a case of commission of a criminal offence, it is certainly open to the petitioners to take appropriate steps in the competent forum and we leave that right open and we should not be treated as having pronounced conclusively that there is no embezzlement so as to take away the right of the petitioners to take proceedings in any other competent forum. We only decline granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The land to the extent of 2 hectares is the subject matter of the lease. In the facts of this case, we are not inclined to further explore the contention based on Section 117 that there has been no re-notification of the land. No doubt, Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel has a case that, as per the earlier consolidation proceedings, it was earmarked for school purpose and, therefore, it is not illegal. 34. We place on record all the appreciation for Mr. A.K. Joshi, learned Amicus Curiae, who assisted the Court by appearing and addressing arguments in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 20 of 2015. 35. Finally, Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel would submit that the institution should be taken over by the Government. We do not see any reason, at all, why we should direct the Government to take over the institution in question. The said contention is also rejected. Consequently, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed, without any order as to costs. 36. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel would submit that the institution should be taken over by the Government. We do not see any reason, at all, why we should direct the Government to take over the institution in question. The said contention is also rejected. Consequently, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed, without any order as to costs. 36. Needless to say that no direction given by us during the course of the petition will survive. 37. There will be no order as to costs.