ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner, Committee of Management, has approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers ;
"(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to sanction grant-in-aid to the petitioner institution with effect from 1.3.1991 and pay arrears of salary of teachers and other employees of the institution under U.P. Act No. 6 of 1978 with effect from 1.3.1991.
(b) issue any other and further suitable writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(c) allow this writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner."
2. A perusal of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner clearly demonstrate that petitioner's institution claims sanction for grants-in-aid for the institution with effect from 1st March, 1991 and payment of the arrears of salary to the teachers and other employees of the institution under U. P. Act No. 6 of 1978 with effect from 1st March, 1991.
3. Heard Shri P. N. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that in view of the decisions appended along with the supplementary-affidavit passed in Writ Petition No. 6090 of 1992, Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Sawaipur Dharna Buzurg, District Kanpur Dehat, through its Manager v. State of U. P. and Ors., decided on 25.11.1992 and Writ Petition No. 4112 of 1992, Committee of Management, Ashok Vidya Mandir Junior High School, Rastpur, District Kanpur Dehat v. State of U. P., through Secretary Department of Education (Basic), Secretariate, Lucknow and Ors., decided on 2.2.1993, the petitioner's institution is also entitled for the grant of the grants-in-aid. Learned counsel for the petitioner though relied upon the provisions of U. P. Act No. 6 of 1978, but according to my reading, no provision of U. P. Act No. 6 of 1978 provides that an institution is, in law, entitled to receive the grants-in-aid from the State Government. The State Government from time to time has issued Government Orders prescribing the standard and norms of allowing grants-in-aid to the recognised institutions, but learned counsel for the petitioner has not referred to, nor brought to my notice any statutory provisions under which the petitioner can claim as of right the grants-in-aid. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the petitioner has no right, much less statutory right for which a mandamus has been sought for, nor there is any corresponding statutory duty cast upon the State Government that it must provide grants-in-aid to the institution even though the same may be a recognised institution. So far as two judgments, referred to above, relied upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, though the facts of the aforesaid two judgments, do not apply to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate either the mala fides or breach of any statutory provision, which might affect the petitioner's statutory right, which can be enforced by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.