JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri Aditya Sharma, in person, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent-1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondent-4. 2. The petition was filed for quashing of order dated 15.10.2019 passed by respondent-2 Director Scholarship Section, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi, by which the petitioner's claim for grant of scholarship under "National Fellowship & Scholarship for Higher Education for Scheduled Tribe Students", (in short called "the Scholarship Scheme") for the session 2018-19, has not been acceded to. The petitioner has further prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to grant him the Scholarship for the session 2018-19. 3. The prayers made in the writ petition are being reproduced as under: "a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 15.10.19 passed by Respondent No. 2. b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Ministry of Tribal Affairs through Respondent No. 2 to grant amount of Rs. 84,274/- for the session 2018-19 and amount of Rs. 39,274/- for the session 2019-20 in the favour of petitioner which petitioner was entitled to but could not get because of the foresaid acts of Respondent No. 3 and his assistants. c. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Ministry of Tribal Affairs through Respondent No. 3 and his assistant to compensate the petitioner under Section (1)(vii), Section (1) (ix) and Section (2)(vii) of Prevention of Atrocities (POA) Act, 1989. d. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondent No. 3 and his assistant and fine and prosecute same under Section (1) (viii), Section (1)(ix) and Section (2) (vii) of Prevention of Atrocities (POA) Act, 1989 for the foresaid acts of Respondent No. 3 and his assistants against the petitioner. d. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondent No. 3 and his assistant and fine and prosecute same under Section (1) (viii), Section (1)(ix) and Section (2) (vii) of Prevention of Atrocities (POA) Act, 1989 for the foresaid acts of Respondent No. 3 and his assistants against the petitioner. e. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the Ministry of Tribal Affairs through Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 3 and his assistants for not complying with the Hon'ble High Court order dated 16.9.19 and passing same order which was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court order dated 16.9.19 and for asking income details from DDO.CRO (ITBP) despite the fact that Hon'ble high Court has already observed and ruled in this context in the favour of petitioner. In this way by the virtue of foresaid act questioning, scandalizing and insulting the credibility of Hon'ble high Court but also questioning the genuineness of the affidavit that was filed by the petitioner. f. issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. g. To award the cost of the writ petition in the favour of petitioner." 4. The petitioner is a student of M.B.B.S. 4th year in the Institute of Medical Sciences, Varanasi (in short called "the Institute"). He belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. He applied for the Scholarship Scheme under a Centrally Section Scheme, for the year 2018-19 but his application was rejected by order dated 12th June, 2019 of Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs. The rejection was on the ground that as per I.T.R. for the year 2018-19 the gross salary of the petitioner's father Gorakh Singh was Rs. 6,02,785/-. The income criterion to be eligible for grant of scholarship, under the said Scheme, is that the total family income of a candidate from all sources should not exceed Rs. 6-00 lac per annum. In view of the guidelines, the petitioner was found to be ineligible and his application under Scholarship Scheme was rejected by order dated 12th June, 2019 passed by respondent-2 therein. 5. The petitioner challenged the order dated 12.6.2019 in Writ C No. 21914 of 2019 (Aditya Sharma v. Union of India and two others) which was initially dismissed on 12.7.2019. In view of the guidelines, the petitioner was found to be ineligible and his application under Scholarship Scheme was rejected by order dated 12th June, 2019 passed by respondent-2 therein. 5. The petitioner challenged the order dated 12.6.2019 in Writ C No. 21914 of 2019 (Aditya Sharma v. Union of India and two others) which was initially dismissed on 12.7.2019. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for review/recall of the judgment dated 12.7.2019 being Civil Misc. Review Application No. 4 of 2019 and alongwith that the petitioner filed a copy of Form-16 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 of his father and pay slips to show that the entire "income of the family of the petitioner did not exceed Rs. 6-00 lac. The petitioner also submitted copy of the I.T.R. for the Assessment Year 2018-19, showing that the income of Rs. 6,02,785/- also included reimbursement of traveling expenses for discharge of official duties to the extent of Rs. 19,200/- and if the same was excluded the income of the petitioner's father did not exceed Rs. 6 lac. 6. The petitioner's review application No. 4 of 2019 was allowed by this Court, recalling judgment dated 12.7.2019 and restoring the writ petition to its original number. By a separate judgment Writ C No. 21914 of 2019 was also allowed on 16.9.2019. The order dated 12.7.2019 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for scholarship was set aside and the respondent-2 therein was directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for scholarship in the light of the documents i.e. Form-16, for the Assessment Year 2018-19 showing gross income as Rs. 5,43,705/- (Annexure-7 to the review application) and pay slip of the petitioner's father, (Annexure-8 to Review Application) showing gross pay as Rs. 43960/- per month, therefore, annual being Rs. 5,27,520/-. 7. The petitioner submitted a copy of the aforesaid documents and the certified copy of the judgment dated 16.9.2019 before the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs/respondent-2 in Writ C No. 21914 of 2019 which was received at his end and the same was confirmed by letter dated 1.10.2019. By letter dated 1.10.2019, the petitioner was required to submit another list of documents and the petitioner sent the list of documents on the same day via mail. 8. By letter dated 1.10.2019, the petitioner was required to submit another list of documents and the petitioner sent the list of documents on the same day via mail. 8. The Director, Scholarship Division, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Room No. 412-B, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi/present respondent-2 passed the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 whereby the petitioner's claim for scholarship for session 2018-19 was again rejected on the same ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, as the family income of the petitioner for the Financial Year 2017-2018 exceeded Rs. 6-00 lac per annum. 9. Challenging the order dated 15.10.2019 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the prayers as mentioned above. 10. Sri Aditya Sharma the petitioner in person, has argued that his claim for scholarship under the Scholarship Scheme has not been accepted, only on the ground that total annual family income of the petitioner from all the sources, exceeded Rs. 6-00 lac. The annual family income has been assessed as Rs. 6,02,785/-. The basis of such determination is the monthly salary details furnished by DDO, CRO (ITBP) for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 submitted to the authorities by letters dated 10.10.2019 and 11.10.2019 in respect of Gorakh Singh the petitioner's father. This was mentioned in the order that the eligibility criterion was that the annual family income must not exceed Rs. 6-00 lacs in the previous year i.e. 2017-18, as the petitioner had applied in the year 2018-19. 11. Sri Aditya Sharma has submitted that even as per the month-wise salary statement prepared by DDO, CRO (ITBP) the annual family income of the father of the petitioner did not exceed 6-00 lac per annum. He has submitted that the earlier order dated 12.6.2019 by which the petitioner's claim for. scholarship was rejected on the ground of income criteria, was set aside by this Court and the matter was sent back for reconsideration by the respondent No. 2 in the earlier petition, in the light of the documents filed by the petitioner in the review application, but in passing the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 those documents were not taken into consideration in spite of a specific direction. He has submitted that the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria for grant of scholarship on the criterion of income as well. 12. He has submitted that the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria for grant of scholarship on the criterion of income as well. 12. Per contra, Sri R.P.S. Chauhan learned counsel for the respondents-1 to 3 has supported the impugned order by submitting that under "National Fellowship and Scholarship for Higher Education for Scheduled Tribe Students", the income criterion is that the total income of the family, from all sources, to be eligible for the scholarship, should not exceed Rs. 6-00 lac per annum. He has argued that for re-examination of the petitioner's case, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, vide letter dated 1.10.2019 requested DDO, CRO (ITBP) to furnish monthly salary statement of Gorakh Singh for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 and on consideration of such salary statement, provided vide letters dated 10.10.2019 and 11.10.2019, the total income of Gorakh Singh was Rs. 6,02,785/- for the year 2017-18 which exceeded Rs. 6-00 lac,-and as such, the petitioner was not eligible for grant of scholarship. He has submitted that no illegality has been committed by the present respondent No. 2 in passing the impugned order. 13. Learned counsels for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4 could not dispute that the impugned order does not show consideration of the documents annexures 7 and 8 to the review application No. 4 of 2019. 14. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record. 15. The Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, implements 'National Fellowship and Scholarship for Higher Education for Scheduled Tribe Students'. This Scheme is a centrally sector Scheme. Two erstwhile central sector schemes i.e. 'Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship' and 'Top Class Education', were merged by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs into one scheme, mentioned above, to provide financial assistance to Scheduled Tribe Students for pursuing higher education. Under the merged scheme fellowship is provided to Scheduled Tribe students to take up higher studies, after completing post graduation, as, M.Phil and Ph.D. Courses. Similarly, scholarship is provided to encourage meritorious Scheduled Tribe students to pursue courses at graduate/post graduate level in identified institutions of excellence, Government and private, in professional fields, such as management, medicine, engineering, information technology, law, etc. The guidelines on which the fellowship/scholarship is provided to the Schedule Tribe student has been filed as Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit. 16. Similarly, scholarship is provided to encourage meritorious Scheduled Tribe students to pursue courses at graduate/post graduate level in identified institutions of excellence, Government and private, in professional fields, such as management, medicine, engineering, information technology, law, etc. The guidelines on which the fellowship/scholarship is provided to the Schedule Tribe student has been filed as Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit. 16. Paragraph-4 of the guidelines 'Annexure-D' to the counter-affidavit provides for eligibility criteria. Since, we are concerned with the refusal of scholarship on the ground of criterion of family income of the candidate, it is relevant to reproduce guidelines No. 4.0 and 4.2. as under: "4.0 Eligibility The Fellowship/Scholarship will be available only to the ST candidates who fulfill the following conditions for the award: 4.2. Scholarship: 4.2.1. ST students who have secured admission in the notified institutions according to the norms prescribed by the respective institutions will be eligible for the scholarship under the scheme. 4.2.2. The student will be eligible to join only the list of institution identified by Ministry. 4.2.3. The total family income of the candidates to be eligible for this scholarship from all sources should not exceed Rs. 6.0 lakh per annum. 4.2.4. The scholarship shall be payable once the student has secured admission and started attending the classes. 4.2.5. The scholarship awarded, will continue till the completion of the course, subject to satisfactory performance of the student." 17. There is no dispute about the eligibility criterion that the total family income of the candidate to be eligible for the scholarship from all sources should not exceed Rs. 6.0 lakh per annum. The dispute is, that according to the petitioner he fulfilled income criterion as total family income of the petitioner did not exceed Rs. 6-00 lac per annum, whereas according to the respondents 1 to 3 it exceeded Rs. 6-00 lac as the income is Rs. 6,02,785/-, and as such, the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criterion relating to income. 18. The moot point is what is the annual family income of the petitioner from all sources. If it exceeds Rs. 6-00 lac or not. If it exceeds Rs. 6.00 lac the petitioner is not eligible but if it does not exceed Rs. 6.00 lac the petitioner is eligible for grant of scholarship. 19. The question what is the annual family income of the petitioner is. a question of fact. If it exceeds Rs. 6-00 lac or not. If it exceeds Rs. 6.00 lac the petitioner is not eligible but if it does not exceed Rs. 6.00 lac the petitioner is eligible for grant of scholarship. 19. The question what is the annual family income of the petitioner is. a question of fact. Finding has been recorded that the annual income of the petitioner's father is Rs. 6,02,785. This Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, does-not interfere with the finding of fact. However, it is open to interference if it has been recorded after ignoring material/evidence on record or suffers from perversity or error of jurisdiction or such determination has not been made by competent authority. 20. The Power of judicial review of this Court, as is well-settled lies against the decision making process and not against the decision itself. If the decision making process is flouted inter alia by violation of basic principles of natural justice, or is ultra vires the powers of the decision makers, or the decision makers take into consideration the irrelevant materials or excludes from consideration relevant materials or admits materials behind the back of the person to be affected or if the decision is such that no reasonable person- would have taken such a decision, this Court steps in to correct the error by setting aside the decision and requiring the decision maker to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. However, this Court in the garb of judicial review would convert itself into a Court of appeal nor would usurp the jurisdiction of the decision maker. 21. We may profitably refer the following decisions on the point. 22. In the case of State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmendra Prasad Singh, 1989 (2) SCC 505 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraph No. 28: "28. It not unoften happens that what appears to be a judicial review for breach of natural justice is, in reality, a review for abuse of discretion. It is true that amongst the many grounds put forward in the show-cause notice dated 19.1.1986, quite a few overlap each other and are distinguishable from those urged for the cancellation of the lease itself. Some of the grounds might, perhaps, be somewhat premature. It is true that amongst the many grounds put forward in the show-cause notice dated 19.1.1986, quite a few overlap each other and are distinguishable from those urged for the cancellation of the lease itself. Some of the grounds might, perhaps, be somewhat premature. Some of them even if true are so trivial that no authority could reasonably be expected to cancel the permission on that basis. For instance the ground that the permission was applied for and granted in the name of one only of the two lessees would be one such. However, Judicial review under Article 226 cannot be converted into an appeal. Judicial review is directed, not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision making-process. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 1 WLR 1155, refers to the merits-legality distinction in judicial review. Lord Hailsham said: The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Lord Brightman observed: ...Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. And held that it would be an error to think: ...that the Court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision-making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself. When the issue raised injudicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant, factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision the judicial review of the decision making process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors. In the present case, it is, however, not necessary to go into the merits and relevance of the grounds having regard to the view we propose to take on the point on natural justice. In the present case, it is, however, not necessary to go into the merits and relevance of the grounds having regard to the view we propose to take on the point on natural justice. It would, however, be appropriate for the statutory authority, if it proposes to initiate action afresh, to classify the grounds pointing out which grounds, in its opinion, support the allegation of fraud or misrepresentation and which, in its view constitute subsequent violations of the terms and conditions of the grant. The grounds must be specific so as to afford the Lessees an effective opportunity of showing cause." 23. In the case of Bachan Singh v. Union of India, 2008 (9) SCC 161 , it was reiterated that the judicial review is directed against the decision making process and not the decision itself. High Court cannot act as a Court of appeal in proceeding under Article 226. Judicial review is not an appeal but are view of the manner in which the decision is made. The Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. Paragraph No. 15 of Bachan Singh case (supra) is being reproduced as under: "15. Having examined the above said order of the learned Single Judge, we find that the findings and reasoning recorded therein are not based upon proper assessment of the facts of the case and it was not necessary for the learned Single Judge to have minutely examined the record of the QCM as if he was sitting in appeal. We find that on merits, the learned Single Judge has not clearly and plainly said that there was no case against the appellant to hold him guilty of the offence charged. It is well-known and well-settled proposition of law that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the findings recorded by the GCM. Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. Judicial review is not an appeal but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. Judicial review is not an appeal but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. Thus, examining the case of the appellant from all angles we are satisfied that there was no irregularity or illegality in the GCM which was fairly and properly conducted by most qualified members holding very high ranks in Army hierarchy." 24. In the case of Bhubaneshwar Development Authority v. Adikanda Biswal; (2012) 11 SCC 731, the same principle was reiterated that the Court concerns itself to the question of legality and is concerned only with whether the decision making authority exceeded its powers, committed an error of law, committed a breach of rules, reached an unreasonable decision or abused its powers. Paragraph 18 of the case of Bhubaneshwar Development Authority (supra) is being reproduced as under: "18. We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in sitting in appeal over the decision taken by the statutory authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. The judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made and the Court sits in judgment only on the correctness of the decision making process and not on the correctness of the decision itself. The Court confines itself to the question of legality and is concerned only with, whether the decision making authority exceeded its power, committed an error of law, committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, reached an unreasonable decision or abused its powers." 25. In the case of Basavi Engineering College Parents Association v. State of Telangana, 2019 (7) SCC 172 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again held as under in paragraph Nos. 17 and 18: "17. In the case of Basavi Engineering College Parents Association v. State of Telangana, 2019 (7) SCC 172 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again held as under in paragraph Nos. 17 and 18: "17. Judicial review, as is well known, lies against the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself.)f the decision-making process is flawed inter alia by violation of the basic principles of natural justice, is ultra-vires the powers of the decision maker, takes into consideration irrelevant materials or excludes relevant materials, admits materials behind the back of the person to be affected or is such that no reasonable person would have taken such a decision in the circumstances, the Court may step in to correct the error by setting aside such decision and requiring the decision maker to take a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The Court, in the garb of judicial review, cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the decision maker and make the decision itself. Neither can it act as an appellate authority of the TFARC. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568 , it was observed: 35. ...We certainly agree that judicial interference with the administration cannot be meticulous in our Montesquieu system of separation of powers. The Court cannot usurp or abdicate, and the parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and never exceeded. If the directorate of a Government company has acted fairly, even if it has faltered in its wisdom, the Court cannot, as a super auditor, take the Board of Directors to task. This function is limited to testing whether the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by Rules of public administration. 18. Judicial restraint in exercise of Judicial review was considered in the State of (NCI) of Delhi v. Sanjeev, (2005) 5 SCC 181 as follows: 16. ...One can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground is "illegality", the second "irrationality", and the third "procedural impropriety". These principles were highlighted by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (commonly known as CCSU case). ...One can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground is "illegality", the second "irrationality", and the third "procedural impropriety". These principles were highlighted by Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (commonly known as CCSU case). If the power has been exercised on a non-consideration or non-application of mind to relevant factors, the exercise of power will be regarded as manifestly erroneous. If a power (whether legislative or administrative) is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous, such exercise of power will stand vitiated." 26. In the present case, we find that in the -earlier round of litigation in Writ C No. 21914 of 2019 in which the order dated 12.6.2019 rejecting the petitioner's claim for scholar ship was' challenged, this Court by judgment dated 16.9.2019 allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 12.6.2019 and remitted the matter to the Respondent No. 2 therein, i.e. the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs (Scholarship Sections), Government of India, to reconsider the claim of petitioner for scholarship in the light of the documents filed before this Court in review application No. 4 of 2019. Those documents were Form-16 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 (Annexure-7 to the review application) and pay slip of the petitioner's father (Annexure 8 to the review application). 27. The judgment of this Court dated 16.9.2019 in Writ C No. 21914 of 2019 is being reproduced as under: "1. The writ petition has been restored vide order or date passed on Review Application, as requested and agreed by the parties, we proceed to hear and decide this case finally at this stage. 2. Heard Sri Aditya Sharma, Petitioner in person, and Sri Manav Charausia and Sri. K.R.S. Jadaun, Advocates, for respondents. 3. It is stated that petitioner has received documents for the assessment year 2018-19 showing gross total income of Rs. 5,43,705/- and copy thereof has been filed as Annexure-7 to the Review Application which is a copy of Form-16 for Assessment Year 2018-19 of Gorakh Singh, father of petitioner. It is pointed out that income certificate, wherein the income of Rs. 6,02,785/- was shown, also included reimbursement of traveling expenses for discharge of official duties to the extent of Rs. 5,43,705/- and copy thereof has been filed as Annexure-7 to the Review Application which is a copy of Form-16 for Assessment Year 2018-19 of Gorakh Singh, father of petitioner. It is pointed out that income certificate, wherein the income of Rs. 6,02,785/- was shown, also included reimbursement of traveling expenses for discharge of official duties to the extent of Rs. 19,200/- and if the same is excluded, the income will be less than Rupees six lacs. Pay slip of petitioner's father has also been filed as An-nexure-8 to Review Application showing gross pay as Rs. 43,960/- and annual income, therefore, comes to Rs. 5,27,520/-. 4. In our view, the respondent-competent authority need to re-examine the claim of petitioner for scholarship in the light of above documents. 5. In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 12.6.2019, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, rejecting claim of petitioner for scholarship only on the ground that income of petitioner's father is more than Rs. 6,00,000/- is hereby set aside. 6. Respondent-2 is directed to re-consider the claim of petitioner for scholarship in the light of above documents, copies whereof shall also be submitted by petitioner alongwith certified copy of this order afresh to respondent-2 within ten days and thereafter respondent-2 shall pass a fresh order, as directed above, within one month." 28. The impugned order dated 15.10.2019 states in paragraph 2 that the petitioner was requested by letter No. 12025/08/2019-SCH dated 30.9.2019 to furnish the document/information which included copy of the Form-16 for Assessment Year 2018-19 of Gorakh Singh, father of the petitioner (Annexure 7 to the review application) and copy of the pay slip of the petitioner's father (Annexure-8 to the review application). The petitioner has stated in paragraph No. 3 of the writ petition that he had already submitted requisite documents in compliance of the order of this Court dated 16.9.2019 to the Deputy Secretary, (Scholarship), Ministry of Tribal Affairs (Scholarship Division). The petitioner in paragraph No. 4 of the petition has stated that on 1.10.2019 a letter from Respondent No. 3 i.e.. Deputy Director Scholarship Division was received by the' petitioner via mail (Annexure 4) asking the petitioner to supply another list of documents as mentioned in that letter dated 30.9.2019 received on mail on 1.10.2019 in Paragraph No. 5. The petitioner in paragraph No. 4 of the petition has stated that on 1.10.2019 a letter from Respondent No. 3 i.e.. Deputy Director Scholarship Division was received by the' petitioner via mail (Annexure 4) asking the petitioner to supply another list of documents as mentioned in that letter dated 30.9.2019 received on mail on 1.10.2019 in Paragraph No. 5. The petitioner has further submitted that on the same day within two hours the petitioner sent all the documents that were asked again via mail (Annexure 5). In reply to the aforesaid averments of the petitioner in paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the writ petition, the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in their counter-affidavit have stated that the petitioner had not submitted the complete documents via letter dated 23.9.2019 to the respondent as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court and, therefore, a letter dated 30.9.2019 was sent to the petitioner requesting him to submit the complete document. However, there is no denial of the petitioner's averments that in compliance of the letter dated 30.9.2019 received to the petitioner on 1.10.2019 via mail all the required documents were sent within two hours on the same day via mail. The impugned order also does not state that the petitioner did not submit the documents required by letter dated 30.9.2019. Besides, the petitioner's averments are supported by Annex-ure-5 which has not been disputed in the counter-affidavit. We have no reason to disbelieve the petitioner's averment substantiated by annexures. 29. We are of the considered view that in passing the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 decision making process has been faulted. The relevant material as directed by this Court was not taken into consideration and the matter has also not been considered by the Deputy Secretary, who was directed to reconsider the matter vide judgment dated 16.9.2019. The ultimate decision, as such cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 15.10.2019 deserves to be quashed with direction to respondent No. 1 that the petitioner's case for grant of scholarship be considered afresh in accordance, with law and in the light of the observations and the directions contained in this judgment, by Deputy Secretary, Scholarship Division Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi. 30. The impugned order dated 15.10.2019 deserves to be quashed with direction to respondent No. 1 that the petitioner's case for grant of scholarship be considered afresh in accordance, with law and in the light of the observations and the directions contained in this judgment, by Deputy Secretary, Scholarship Division Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi. 30. We are further of the considered view that the petitioner's claim for grant of scholarship, as per the directions of this Court vide judgment dated 6.9.2019 passed, in Writ C No. 21914 of 2019 has not been considered. It has also not been considered by the authority who was directed to consider. Consequently, the petitioner who belongs to the Scheduled Tribe and is pursuing studies in the 4th year of MBBS, has to rush again to this Court. He has been imposed a forced litigation. 31. Chapter 21 Rule 11 of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 prescribed the award of cost which reads as under: "19. Chapter XXI, Rule 11 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 prescribes the award of costs, which reads as under: "11. Costs.- In disposing of an application under this Chapter the Court may make such order as to costs as it may consider just. 1. Costs-Imposition of.-it is apparent that non-payment of cost is an exemption for which special reasons have to be given by the Court. The cost imposed should be in accordance with rules and if the proceedings are unnecessarily protracted or adjournments have been sought it is upon the discretion of the Judge to impose exemplary cost taking also into account the circumstances etc. for the purpose of adjournment. 2. Awarding of Costs.-Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 , has held that "so far as awarding of costs at the time of judgment is concerned, awarding of costs must be treated generally as mandatory inasmuch as the liberal attitude of the Courts in directing the parties to bear their own costs had led the parties to file a number of frivolous cases in the Courts or to raise frivolous and unnecessary issues. Costs should invariably follow the event. Costs must be appropriately apportioned. Special reasons must be assigned if costs are not being awarded. Costs should be assessed according to the rule in force." 32. Costs should invariably follow the event. Costs must be appropriately apportioned. Special reasons must be assigned if costs are not being awarded. Costs should be assessed according to the rule in force." 32. Apart from the aforesaid statutory provision the Supreme Court in the case in Ramrameshwari Devi and others v. Nirmala Devi and others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 , has held that the compensation must be awarded to persons who have been forced to enter into litigation. Paragraph Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 43 of the case of Ramrameshwari Devi (supra) are being reproduced as under: "31. Dr. Arun Mohan, learned amicus curiae, has written an extremely useful, informative and unusual book Justice, Courts and Delays. This book also deals with the main causes of delay in the administration of justice. He has also suggested some effective remedial measures. We would briefly deal with the aspect of delay in disposal of civil cases and some remedial measures and suggestions to improve the situation. According to our considered view, if these suggestions are implemented in proper perspective, then the present justice delivery system of civil litigation would certainly improve to a great extent. 32. According to the learned author, 90% of our Court time and resources are consumed in attending to uncalled for litigation, which is created only because our current procedures and practices hold out an incentive for the wrongdoer. Those involved receive less than full justice and there are many more in the country, in fact, a greater number than those involved who suffer injustice because they have little access to justice, in fact, lack of awareness and confidence in the justice system. 33. According to Dr. Mohan, in our legal system, uncalled for litigation gets encouragement because our Courts do not impose realistic costs. The parties raise unwarranted claims and defences and also adopt obstructionist and delaying tactics because the Courts do not impose actual or realistic costs. Ordinarily, the successful party usually remains uncompensated in our Courts and that operates as the main motivating factor for unscrupulous litigants. Unless the Courts, by appropriate orders or directions remove the cause for motivation or the incentives, uncalled for litigation will continue to accrue, and there will be expansion and obstruction of the litigation. Court time and resources will be consumed and justice will be both delayed and denied. 43. Unless the Courts, by appropriate orders or directions remove the cause for motivation or the incentives, uncalled for litigation will continue to accrue, and there will be expansion and obstruction of the litigation. Court time and resources will be consumed and justice will be both delayed and denied. 43. We have carefully examined the written submissions of the learned amicus curiae and the learned counsel for the parties. We are clearly of the view that unless we ensure that wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the Courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that Court's otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases." 33. Again in the case of A Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshetirya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, 2012 (6) SCC 430 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle. 34. In the case of Jagdev Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (8) ADJ 700 (DB), this Court held that the imposition of cost is must and the Courts can award compensatory cost to the litigants who have approached to the Court because of commission and omission of the State Government and as in the said case the petitioner therein was compelled to approach this Court for the second time, cost was imposed. It is relevant to reproduce paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 of the said judgment as under: "23. In view of above and keeping in view the factual matrix on record, it appears that the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court for the second time in spite of the fact that while passing the impugned order, the Government itself recorded a finding that the petitioner is in possession of the infrastructure regarding the agricultural industry which is running over the land in dispute which, according to the petitioner's counsel, is for more than 48 years. Once, the Government itself found that no actual possession has been delivered in the manner provided by the Apex Court in the catena of judgments ((supra)), then it was not open for the Government to reject the-application and adjudicate the controversy in an indecisive manner with contradictory finding. It is a fit case where exemplary cost should be awarded. 24. The writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 3.6.2013, contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition with all consequential benefits. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the State Government to reconsider the petitioner's case keeping in view the observation made in the body of present judgment, expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present judgment. Cost is quantified to Rs. 1 lac, out of which the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- and the remaining Rs. 50,000/- shall be remitted to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Allahabad. Let the cost be deposited within two months from today. In case the cost is not deposited within the time stipulated above, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Collector, Allahabad. Registry to take follow-up action. The writ petition is allowed accordingly with cost as above." 35. We, therefore quash the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 and direct the respondent No. 1, The Union of India through Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi, that the petitioner's case for grant of scholarship be considered afresh by the Deputy Secretary, Scholarship Division Ministry of Tribal Affairs New Delhi in accordance with law after considering the documents i.e. Annexure 7 and 8 to the Review Application No. 4 of 2019 as well. The petitioner's contention that even as per the letter of DDO, CRO (ITBP) dated 10.10.2019 and 11.10.2019 the annual family income of the petitioner does not exceed rupees 6 lacs, shall also be considered by the said authority. 36. The petitioner's contention that even as per the letter of DDO, CRO (ITBP) dated 10.10.2019 and 11.10.2019 the annual family income of the petitioner does not exceed rupees 6 lacs, shall also be considered by the said authority. 36. The petitioner is directed to serve the Respondent No. 1 and the Deputy Secretary, Scholarship Division Ministry of Tribal Affairs New Delhi, the certified copy of this judgment and the copy of the judgement dated 16.9.2019 alongwith copy of Annexures 7 and 8 of the Review Application No. 4 of 2019, with an application/representation in which the petitioner shall explain as to how his annual family income did not exceed rupees 6 lacs even as per the letters of DDO, CRO (ITBP) dated 10.10.2019 and 11.10.2019. 37. The decision shall positively be taken by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment to the said authority. 38. In the circumstances, we impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the present respondent No. 2, Director, Scholarship Division, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi, which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment before the said authority, failing which the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the said Respondent No. 2 by the concerned collector and shall be paid to the petitioner. 39. The petitioner shall serve certified copy of this judgment on respondent No. 2 as well as the Collector of the concerned District. 40. So far as the prayer Nos. (c), (d) and (e) in the writ petition are concerned, we leave it open to the petitioner, if he chooses, to approach appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. 41. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits on the matter in issue, i.e., whether the petitioner is or is not eligible for grant of scholarship under the scholarship scheme on the criterion of income. 42. The writ petition is allowed with costs as aforesaid.