JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners sought for the following reliefs :
"(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.9.1999 passed by opposite party No. 1.
(b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government to extend the said benefit from the date other institutions who have been published in the list dated 16.12.1998 receiving the grant-in-aid from the Government Exchequer.
(c) Issue by writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(d) award cost of petition in favour of the petitioners."
2. Apart from the aforesaid reliefs, petitioners sought for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.9.1999, Annexure-26 to the writ petition, whereby the State of U. P. in pursuance to the direction issued by this Court vide its order dated 18.1.1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 1804 of 1999 as well as by the order dated 6.7.1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 26580 of 1999 had directed to decide the petitioners' representation by a reasoned order as to why the petitioners' institution has not been included in the list of grant-in-aid issued by the State of U. P. when all other institutions, which were there in existence as recognised institutions before the relevant cut-off date, have been included and the petitioners' institution alone is discriminated. It is in pursuance of these directions that the enquiry has been conducted in the matter by the respondents and the respondents have passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition.
3. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that in fact the case set up by the respondents is that the petitioners have never applied for bringing their institution in the list of grant-in-aid qua the list which has already been released. This fact that the petitioners have never applied has been vehemently denied by the petitioners. Sri R. N. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placed several documents but this Court, at this stage in view of the order proposed, will not enter into this disputed question of fact, particularly in view of the fact that a subsequent list has already been released by the State of U. P. bringing all other institutions up to the year 2001 in the list of institutions who were entitled for grant-in-aid. Sri Singh submitted that even assuming, though not admitted, that in the year 1997-98, the petitioner application for bringing their institution in the grant-in-aid was not traceable, there is, absolutely no reason for not bringing the petitioners* institution in the list of grant-in-aid, whereas up to the year 2001 other institutions have been included. From the perusal of the different annexures appended with the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners as well as the respondents were insisting upon their case set up in the application said to have been filed by the petitioners in the year 1997-98, which has been denied by the respondents.
4. In my opinion, the interest of justice will meet if the petitioners are directed to file a fresh representation within a period of three weeks from today confining their case to the subsequent release of the list of bringing institution in the list of grant-in-aid and respondents are directed to decide the said representation within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with a fresh representation before the respondents. The order, which I propose is acceptable by both the parties.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussions without entering into the merits of the case, I direct the respondents that in case the petitioners file a fresh representation within three weeks from today for bringing their institution in grant-in-aid list, particularly when all institutions, which have been set up upto the year 2001, have already been brought on the list of grant-in-aid, the respondents after entertaining such enquiries, shall decide the same within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before them. It is made clear that the respondents will not be considering this aspect of the matter that the petitioners' earlier application said to have been filed in the year 1997-98 has already been rejected, particularly when they have already stated that there was no application filed by the petitioners in the year 1997-98.
6. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of.