JUDGMENT : 1. Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India and also under the provision of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 and Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974 and the Grant-in-aid Code, 1964 for the prayers as prayed for inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department dated 24.02.2006 on the grounds stated in the memo of petition and also for interim relief to stay the impugned order at Annexure-A. 2. Special Civil Application No.5615 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India and also under the provision of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 and Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations, 1974 and the Grant-in-aid Code, 1964 for the prayers as prayed for inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the order passed by the District Education Officer dated 18.02.2006 at Annexure-A regarding the recovery of the amount of Rs.38,19,921/on the grounds stated in the memo of petition. 3. Civil Application No.11334 of 2006 in Special Civil Application No.4103 of 2016 is filed inter alia praying for suspension of the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 24.02.2006 passed respondent pending said writ petition. 4. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows : – 4.1 The petitioner is a Trust viz., Shantiniketan Education Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and had been running Higher Secondary School Hindu Medium w.e.f. June, 1987 and also Gujarati Medium w.e.f. June, 1988. As it transpires from the record, there were irregularities, which were found during the inspection regarding the appointment of the staff and family members and relatives were appointed without procedure. There were dummy students. Thus the grant was taken for the payment of the salary of such staff as well as the grant was received for the dummy students resulting in financial irregularities and manipulation, which led to filing of the FIR as stated in detail. Criminal Misc. There were dummy students. Thus the grant was taken for the payment of the salary of such staff as well as the grant was received for the dummy students resulting in financial irregularities and manipulation, which led to filing of the FIR as stated in detail. Criminal Misc. Application No.11454 of 2004 was filed by the Trustees of the petitioner-Trust for quashing of the FIR and the Trustees were found absconding as observed in the order of the High Court (Coram : P.B. Majmudar, J.) in the said Criminal Misc. Application No.11454 of 2004 produced at Annexure-N collectively. It is specifically revealed that the daughter-in-law or the daughter, who were not having sufficient qualification and it was doubtful, the appointment was made. As it transpire during the inspection that though the presence was marked, the daughter-in-law, Asha Singh was not found present and as it is recorded even after waiting upto 4 O’clock, she was not found in the campus of the school. It is in this background, initially the order came to be passed dated 08.12.2004 cancelling registration of the recognition of the School run filed by the petitioner-Trust. Thereafter the order at Annexure-J dated 08.06.2005 came to be passed and, thereafter, the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 24.02.2006 came to be passed by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, which has been challenged on the grounds stated in the memo of petition and learned advocate has made submission at length. 4.2 Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent no.2Secondary Education Board specifically contending and highlighting the irregularities. It has been contended that the recognition of the petitioner-Trust has been cancelled by the Board vide letter dated 23.03.2005, which is self explanatory. It is stated that the students studying in the petitioner were transferred to another school and record was also transferred. It is contended that when the notice was issued and no interim relief was granted, the petitioner has made attempt for overreaching the process of law and has run the School illegally without recognition. It is specifically stated that the order cancelling the recognition of the School dated 23.03.2005 has not been challenged and has attained finality and still such petition is pursued with ulterior motive. As stated in detail, Misc. It is specifically stated that the order cancelling the recognition of the School dated 23.03.2005 has not been challenged and has attained finality and still such petition is pursued with ulterior motive. As stated in detail, Misc. Civil Application No.812/2006 was filed with Letters Patent Appeal No.710/2006 and the Hon’ble Division Bench after taking into consideration remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision, copy of which is produced at Annexure-R1 at Page No.124. 4.3 There is another affidavit filed by the Board highlighting the conduct of the Trustee of the petitioner-Trust, which specifically refers to the details. It has been contended that as the Board had requested vide letter dated 17.02.2006 providing an opportunity of hearing to the Board, the board was given opportunity and, thereafter vide order dated 24.02.2006, earlier order was confirmed and, therefore, the order dated 26.07.2005 was recalled as it was passed on the basis of the representation of the petitioner Trust without providing an opportunity of hearing. 5. Heard learned advocate, Shri Nikhil Kariel for the petitioner, learned AGP Shri Venugopal Patel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate, Shri A.D. Oza for the respondent nos.2-Board. 6. Learned advocate, Shri Kariel made submission with details to emphasis that there is no communication by the Board to show that it had made the representation and pursuant thereto, earlier order was recalled and it was reviewed. Learned advocate, Shri Kariel referred to the order dated 24.02.2006 at Annexure-A and also the order dated 26.07.2005 at Annexure-M and also the order dated 08.06.2005 at Annexure-J. Learned advocate, Shri Kariel submitted that the fact that the Board was not given hearing, would suggest that something was not proper with the office of the State Government and, therefore, it was directed to make an inquiry and pass an order. Learned advocate, Shri Kariel referred to the order passed by the High Court in quashing petition produced at Annexure-N and submitted that the observations were made and it would not permit the authority to reopen or review the order. Alternatively it was suggested that it was a passing remark and, therefore, it was not justified to recall the order. Learned advocate, Shri Kariel referred to the order passed by the High Court in quashing petition produced at Annexure-N and submitted that the observations were made and it would not permit the authority to reopen or review the order. Alternatively it was suggested that it was a passing remark and, therefore, it was not justified to recall the order. Learned advocate, Shri Kariel referred to the order in detail and submitted that in any case, the order of the High Court clearly provides, “If that be so”, meaning thereby if it was justified on the basis of the inquiry or the material then, it could have been reviewed. Learned advocate, Shri Kariel strenuously submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the authority has undertaken such inquiry and therefore, earlier order which has been reviewed without any justification, is bad and illegal. He also submitted that the order passed by the authority i.e. the same authority or the officer, who was permitted to remain present before the High Court and, therefore, he was under pressure and, therefore, can be said to have been passed in the dictate. He, therefore, submitted that such order can be under the dictate and, therefore, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate, Shri Kariel submitted that the observations made in the order of the High Court are only prima facie finding and it was kept open for the inquiry and, therefore, it could have been passed after such inquiry. He submitted that such order which has been passed without any detailed inquiry, is bed. Learned advocate, Shri Kariel referred to the papers at length to support his submission that merely because two Trustees have proceeded further, it would not be sufficient to derecognize the School. He also emphasized that the amount has been deposited partly and, therefore, the order of de-recognition the School is harsh and, therefore, the present petition is filed. 7. Learned advocate, Shri A.D. Oza for the respondent no.2 referred to the papers including the order at Annexure-A as well as the order at Annexure-M. He referred to three affidavits filed by the Board and submitted that the irregularities and malpractice were rampanted, which led to filing of the FIR against the Trustee, who were also absconding. 7. Learned advocate, Shri A.D. Oza for the respondent no.2 referred to the papers including the order at Annexure-A as well as the order at Annexure-M. He referred to three affidavits filed by the Board and submitted that the irregularities and malpractice were rampanted, which led to filing of the FIR against the Trustee, who were also absconding. He also referred to the Affidavit-in-reply with details as to how the family members were appointed without any procedure though they were not having any qualification. He submitted that the qualification of Asha Singh raises clouds of doubt as she remained in absent in SSC examination conducted in 1990 and she has been said to have cleared necessary qualification in March, 1991. He submitted that on the date of inspection, though there was signature of Asha K. Singh, she was not present in the campus. Similarly, there is an issue with regard to the educational qualification. He submitted that during the visit of the special team, 178 ghost students were found and grant of Government has been misused by keeping such students on record. In fact, after the visit, the School made proposal for the reduction of the class, which itself shows the bogus claim, which was made. Learned advocate, Shri Oza referred to the Affidavit-in-reply which suggests in detail about the members of the relatives and family appointed in the School. Further, learned advocate, Shri Oza referred to the FIR filed against the Trustee and submitted that they were absconding, therefore after the detailed inquiry, the order for de-recognition was passed and, therefore, the present petition may not be entertained looking to the nature of irregularities, malpractice and the conduct of the petitioner. 8. Learned AGP Shri Venugopal Patel referred to the papers at length and submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is required to be considered. He referred to the order passed by the High Court at Annexure-N and emphasized that the petitioners were absconding and it would show that the petitioner has no regard for law. He also referred to the report of the Commissioner produced on record and also the order passed by the Commissioner dated 08.12.2004 at Annexure-H derecognizing the School. He submitted that it is a detailed order referring to the irregularity and malpractice, for which, show cause notice was issued and, thereafter, the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2004 at Annexure-H came to be passed. He submitted that it is a detailed order referring to the irregularity and malpractice, for which, show cause notice was issued and, thereafter, the aforesaid order dated 08.12.2004 at Annexure-H came to be passed. He submitted that therefore sufficient opportunity has been granted and after show cause notice as well as providing an opportunity to the Trustee to remain personally present, the order came to be passed. Learned AGP Shri Patel submitted that though such opportunity was granted, the representative of the petitioner-Trust and the Trustee did not remain present. Again learned AGP Shri Patel submitted that as the order which was already passed at Annexure-A has not been challenged, the order at Annexure-J dated 08.06.2005 was passed and, therefore, when the Board requested that such order is passed without providing an opportunity, it was considered and the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 24.02.2006 came to be passed confirming the earlier order. He, therefore, submitted that there is no substance in the submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner that the order has been passed or reviewed under the dictates of the High Court. Further the submission that as it was only a passing remark made by the High Court, it does not justify such order, is misconceived. Learned AGP Shri Patel referred to the order passed by the High Court at Annexure-H and emphasized the observation made therein. Learned AGP Shri Patel submitted that it reflects the attitude and conduct of the petitioner, who is claiming that inspite of the malpractice, he may be run the educational institute, where the High Court has clearly reflected that it will not be in the public interest. Therefore on the basis of the inquiry and as stated above, after the notice and providing an opportunity of hearing, when the order is passed, it does not call for any interference and, therefore, discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be exercised in view of the background of the facts and chequered history. Learned AGP Shri Patel submitted that the petitioner has been even in this petition conveniently not talking about the order at Annexure-H dated 08.12.2004, which has been passed earlier and it has not been challenged and has attained finality. Learned AGP Shri Patel submitted that the petitioner has been even in this petition conveniently not talking about the order at Annexure-H dated 08.12.2004, which has been passed earlier and it has not been challenged and has attained finality. He submitted that the petitioner has been beating about the bush for so called review or recall of the order conveniently not mentioning about the order at Annexure-H and his own conduct, which is reflected by the High Court. Learned AGP Shri Patel referred to the FIR as well as the order of the High Court and submitted that the petitioner has said that he is challenging the modification in the order but as such, there is no modification but it is only confirmation of the order after the Board was given opportunity of hearing. He, therefore, submitted that if the Board was given opportunity and after giving opportunity of hearing, the order is passed restoring the same position as per the Annexure-H, no grievance could be made by the petitioner relying upon the order dated 08.06.2005. He submitted that the impugned order has recorded in detail the irregularities and malpractice including the manner in which the family members are appointed even without qualification and also dummy students. He emphasized that it is clearly recorded that inspite of giving opportunity, the Trustee of the School have not improved and the irregularities have been continued. He submitted that on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner, the order dated 08.06.2005 at Annexure-J is with regard to the code in the grant and as it is recorded in the impugned order, the recognition of the School has been considered after hearing the Board and thereby confirmed the earlier order at Annexure-H. 9. In rejoinder, learned advocate, Shri Kariel again submitted that how the authority can take the order passed earlier dated 08.06.2005 at Annexure-J in review. He submitted that there is no application made by the Board for such review of the order and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court is the basis and even in the order of the High Court, there are only remarks. He submitted that there is no application made by the Board for such review of the order and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court is the basis and even in the order of the High Court, there are only remarks. Alternatively, it was suggested that on the basis of the order of the High Court, it was reviewed then, it would suggest that it is an order passed under the dictates and the conclusion has not been arrived at on the basis of any inquiry. He submitted that the order of the High Court clearly provided “if that be so”, which suggest that only after the inquiry, if the conclusion is arrived at then, the option is given but it would not justify suo motu review of the order which has been passed and, therefore, the present petition may be allowed. 10. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition deserves consideration. 11. The background of the facts as recorded hereinabove clearly reflects about the irregularities and other mischief, which led to filing of the FIR, where the Managing Trustees had to get bail and who had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.11454/2004 for quashing of the FIR and the observations have been made by the High Court (Coram : P.B. Majmudar, J.) in the orders, which have been produced at Annexure-N collectively. Admittedly the Trustees were absconding and there were ghost students enrolled for the purpose of taking benefit of the salary grant and, therefore, it has been observed that the public money is squandered away. Therefore, the Deputy Secretary was directed to remain present and it has been observed in the order dated 03.02.2006, “All these things reflects only a sorry state of affairs as to how the Education Department of the State is functioning. It is high time that the things should be put in order by keeping in mind the State Exchequer and it is the duty of everyone concerned to see that public money is not wasted and squandered away.” 12. Again reflecting on the conduct of the Trustees, the Court had recorded in the order dated 07.02.2006, “It is required to be noted that in view of subsequent events if the Government has decided to cancel the registration of the institution, it is always open for the Government to do so in accordance with law. Again reflecting on the conduct of the Trustees, the Court had recorded in the order dated 07.02.2006, “It is required to be noted that in view of subsequent events if the Government has decided to cancel the registration of the institution, it is always open for the Government to do so in accordance with law. It is also pointed out to the Court that there are serious allegations which are finding place even on the file maintained by the State Government and in view of the fact that the trustees are declared “absconders”, State Government is contemplating to cancel the registration of such institution.” 13. Therefore the background clearly suggests about the measures, which were required to be taken and if the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 24.02.2006 is passed with details about the irregularities reflecting as to how not only the ghost students were there, for which, the grant were taken but also the appointments of the teachers were the only family members and relatives. Further even the daughter-in-law, who is said to have been appointed, was not qualified and was not having necessary qualifications. It is in this background, the submissions made by learned advocate, Shri Kariel are devoid of merits and what he has been beating about the bush referring to earlier order dated 08.12.2004 to contend that it is a review of the order or that the impugned order is passed under the dictates of the High Court, are also thoroughly devoid of merits. In fact, it reflects not only attitude of the petitioner but learned advocate, who has been making such submission with reference to the order of the High Court by saying that it is only a passing remarks. On the other hand, he has made submission that if pursuant to the order of the High Court, the decision is taking, it is acting under the dictates. One cannot overlook the fact that if there was any soft paddling or any kind of laxity, the High Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is oblige to set the things right in public interest and in any case, it is not that the order is passed at the instance of the High Court when it has been clearly recorded in the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.11454/2004 dated 07.02.2006 by the High Court, which has been quoted hereinabove recording that, “Government has decided to cancel the registration of the institution” 14. Meaning thereby, it was the decision taken by the Government already, which was informed to the Court during hearing. The order which has been relied upon by learned advocate, Shri Kariel that the order is sought to be reviewed, has no basis and in fact, he has kept convenient silent about the order passed at Annexure-H dated 08.12.2004, by which, the registration has been cancelled by the Board and the impugned order dated 24.02.2006 is passed by the State Government after the Board had appointed and represented that hearing has not been given and when it was pointed out that the order dated 08.12.2004 is already passed, the impugned order is passed after considering relevant material confirming the order for cancellation of the registration and the order dated 08.06.2004, which is sought to be relied upon, is only with regard to the reduction in the grant. It also refers to the fact that even after that order, when the irregularities were not corrected, the impugned order came to be passed and, therefore, it does not call for any interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. It may not be out of place to state that the present petitions are filed as and by way of abuse of process of law having regard to the background and the petitioner-Trust and the Trustees seem to have pursued the litigation for passing the time. 16. It is well accepted that scope of exercise of discretion under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would be limited. Moreover having regard to the background of the facts as recorded hereinabove, scope of exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not justify the exercise of such discretionary jurisdiction even under the concept of judicial review. 17. Therefore, Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2006 deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. 18. In view of the dismissal of the Special Civil Application No.4103 of 2006, Civil Application No.11334 of 2006 filed therein does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 19. Therefore, Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2006 deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. 18. In view of the dismissal of the Special Civil Application No.4103 of 2006, Civil Application No.11334 of 2006 filed therein does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 19. In view of the reasons recorded in the order passed in Special Civil Application No.4103 of 2006, Special Civil Application No.5615 of 2006 would also stands disposed of accordingly.