ORDER : S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant – original petitioner in Special Civil Application no.19894 of 2018 has takenout this Letters Patent Appeal assailing the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28th January 2019 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition after recording reasons in detail. 2. The facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal devoid of unnecessary details, deserves to be setout as under :- 2.1 A religious minority trust called Adarsha Prathamik Shala Trust is running an aided private secondary school called Shri Ramnath High School at Huseini Chowk in Rajkot city since last about 35 years and the building is about 60 years old. 2.2 As the said building became old and dilapidated and completely unsafe for use of the students and the staff, the Management had resolved to shift the school to Divine S.K. Chowk, Gandhi Gram Rajkot and as one time shifting is allowed, under Secondary Education Regulations 10 and amendment made thereto vide G.R. dated 26th March 2003. 2.3 Since, the proposal for approval was pending, in the interest of the students and the staff, the school is shifted to the above mentioned safe building. As the decision on proposal for approval was not forthcoming, the management felt that it can get the old building repaired and run the school from the original place itself and therefore, withdrew the proposal for transfer. Since the estimate for renovation was exorbitant and was not affordable, again it requested the Board to consider the earlier request for transfer and has also filed two petitions before this Court. Ultimately, the respondent no.1 has taken a decision on 26th October 2018 and declined the request for transfer of the school in flagrant breach of principles of natural justice i.e. without hearing the petitioner so also in contravention of the procedure. The DEO has vide his communication dated 1st November 2018 informed the decision to the petitioner trust and on the basis of the said decision of the Government, the Board has also instructed the DEO to take appropriate action against the school and therefore, the petitioner preferred the petition. 3. The DEO has vide his communication dated 1st November 2018 informed the decision to the petitioner trust and on the basis of the said decision of the Government, the Board has also instructed the DEO to take appropriate action against the school and therefore, the petitioner preferred the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant invited Court's attention to the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal and submitted that unfortunately, the dire situation, which warranted immediate shifting of the school ought to have appreciated by the authority as well as the Court. The appellant was all along attempting to seek appropriate permission for shifting the school in question. The history of litigation in terms of petitions after petitions and representation would watch for the same and the present petition on which the Court has passed the order, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, is only against the decision rendered by the Competent Authority in not granting approval as sought for. The main ground, which weighed with the Court is the original petitioner's act of shifting the school during the pendency of approval application. But, that being not a grave act and rather warranted only on account of safety and security of the students, therefore, the same ought not to have been held against the original petitioner for declining relief. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that insistence of the authority on technical aspect of non-shifting of school without permission in fact is required to be viewed in a situation where the life and safety was at stake, therefore, those factors actually warranted appropriate appreciation by the authority. Learned counsel further submitted that the authorities while deciding the application have not followed the principle of natural justice as the report of the DEO, which was required to be supplied to the petitioner has not been supplied. In that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. We are of the view that the appeal contains the question, which needs to be addressed for proper appreciation of the contention, therefore, it would be most appropriate to setout here-in-below few indisputable aspect emerging there from. (a) The school was run at a place about 6 kilometers away form the existing place which was chosen by the petitioner without there being any appropriate permission to shift the school. (a) The school was run at a place about 6 kilometers away form the existing place which was chosen by the petitioner without there being any appropriate permission to shift the school. (b) The petitioner's original application dated 30th May 2014 was pending and without there being any decision thereon, the petitioner chose to shift the school from 15th June 2014. (c) The shifting of school on 15th June 2014 pending permission of the authority, is said to have been on account of exigency without there being any evidence adduced on record. Assuming for the sake of examining without holding that such a case was permissible, then also it was not a case of temporary shift or arrangement had such a case been made out, perhaps itself direction would have been available instead thereof all along. It is contended that during the pendency of the application to shift on account of exigency, the school was shifted. Now, this shifting of school on 15th June 2014 also was not persuaded for seeking any appropriate approval as it is reported that on 11th July 2014 the original application dated 30th May 2014 came to be withdrawn. This withdrawal of the application rendered the school without any prop, which otherwise could have been perhaps available to argue for sustaining. The earlier petitions being SCA No.13624 of 2014, SCA No.9812 of 2015 & SCA No.11721 of 2017 and the orders passed thereon did not move the case of the petitioner in any positive manner. Rather, it can be said that all along, the petitioner continued the school in new building at the place where the school is shifted and thus, perpetuated the action which was otherwise not justified in law. 6. Against this backdrop of almost indisputable aspect, this Court is called upon to examine the order passed by the authority and when the Court has in detail adverted to the disturbing circumstances and petitioner's shifting of the school without permission needs to be viewed in a proper perspective. The following paragraphs of the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be taken into consideration. “5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and to the documents on record, it appears that there are certain undisputed facts. The following paragraphs of the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to be taken into consideration. “5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and to the documents on record, it appears that there are certain undisputed facts. It is not disputed that the petitioner Trust had not obtained the prior approval of the respondent authorities before shifting the school from the Huseini Chowk, where it was being run. It is not disputed that the application made by the petitioner Trust to the respondent Board on 30.05.2014 seeking approval to move at the new premises was withdrawn, the said proposal was withdrawn vide letter dated 11.7.2014. It is also not disputed that the petitioner Trust did not have the fund of Rs.25,000/-which it was required to deposit before the respondent Authorities nor had the funds to repair the old school premises. The petitioner had already started functioning at the new place since 15.06.2014 without the permission of the respondent Board. However, the petitioner kept on filing baseless petitions one after the other. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that the petitioner had made application on 23.09.2016, after the disposal of the petition being Special Civil Application No. 13624 of 2014 (Annexure O), however in the said application the petitioner had not stated the fact that the petitioner had already shifted the school from the old premises to the new premises. That apart, as per the site inspection carried out by the respondent authorities, the new premises of the school was found to be working in the shopping center and no school at the premises of Huseini Chowk was found to be operating. It was also found that there was no playground in the new premises and that the distance between the old school and the new school was about 5.6 kms, as a result thereof the beneficiaries were also changed. 6. It was also found that there was no playground in the new premises and that the distance between the old school and the new school was about 5.6 kms, as a result thereof the beneficiaries were also changed. 6. At this juncture, it is required to be mentioned that as per the regulation 9(10) of the Secondary Education Regulations, 1974, on the request made by a person in charge of the management of the registered school, the Secretary can make changes in the entries in relation to the school entered in the Register after following, as far as may be, the procedure similar to the procedure for registration of the school and after obtaining the previous approval of the executive committee of the Board to such change. It may also be noted that as per Section 31(1) of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Act, 1972, no person can impart secondary education through a school unless such school is registered under the provisions of the said Act. Hence from the combined reading of the said provisions contained in Section 31(1) of the Act and the Regulation 9(10) of the said Regulations, it is clear that in order to impart the secondary education and continue with the registration, the person in charge of the management of the school has to follow the procedure as far as possible which is followed at the time of registration of the school. It may further be noted that the State Government in Education department vide the notification dated 17.07.1999 has inserted the clause 10(1) and 10(2) (a) to the clauses contained in sub regulation (7) of the Regulation 9 of the said Regulations, according to which, if the building of the school is in a dilapidated condition, the permission to change the building of the school could be granted within 1 km of the area in which the existing building of the school is situated. Such change could be made by the management after obtaining the consent of at least 50% of the parents of the students, teachers and the staff of the school and such permission to change could be granted only once. Such change could be made by the management after obtaining the consent of at least 50% of the parents of the students, teachers and the staff of the school and such permission to change could be granted only once. In the instant case, the petitioner without following the said procedure and without obtaining the previous permission of the respondent Board had shifted the premises of the school to another premises in a shopping center, which had no playground and which was situated more than 5 kms away from the old premises. Such conduct and actions of the petitioner Trust was in utter disregard and in violation of the said Regulations. The respondent authorities therefore after making the site visit and necessary inquiry did not grant the permission for the reasons stated in the impugned order dated 26.10.2018, which does not call for any interference. 7. Though it was sought to be contended by learned Advocate Mr. Deshmukh that the impugned order was passed by the respondent No. 1 without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Trust, the court does not find any substance in the same. The respondent authority pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, had taken the decision after visiting the site and after making the necessary inquiry. The respondent No. 3 District Education Officer, Rajkot pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No. 1 had called upon the petitioner vide the letter dated 01.11.2018 to explain within 7 days with regard to the impugned decision taken by the respondent No. 1, failing which the necessary action under the provisions contained in the Grant-in-aid Code would be taken. The petitioner Trust instead of responding to the said letter has rushed to this Court by filing the present petition which does not call for any interference of the Court.” 7. In view thereof, when these paragraphs and findings have remained uncontroverted in any manner, it would surely go to show that the petitioner did not make out a case for any discretion to be exercised in its favour. It is all the more so when the petitioner's past conduct evinced scant regard for the provision under which the permission is to be sought and such an attitude or approach cannot be countenanced by issuing any positive direction, which would otherwise amount to endorsing the illegal act on the part of the petitioner. 8. It is all the more so when the petitioner's past conduct evinced scant regard for the provision under which the permission is to be sought and such an attitude or approach cannot be countenanced by issuing any positive direction, which would otherwise amount to endorsing the illegal act on the part of the petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the order impugned needs no interference and the same is confirmed. As a result thereof, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. In view of the order passed in the main matter, no orders in the Civil Application and the same is disposed of.