Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1958 and agreement was executed between petitioner & the respondent and it was agreed to work & run the special schools for fulfillment of the project under the conditions laid down in the agreement and the respondent accordingly agreed to provide grant -in -aid in terms of the agreement executed between the parties. On inspection, the respondent found irregularities as alleged and took decision to close down the institution being run by the petitioner society vide order dt. 31.12.2009 and that was assailed by the petitioner by filing instant petition and while issuing notices interim protection was granted to the petitioner by the Court vide order dt. 08.02.2010 directing the respondent to permit the petitioner society to run its institution. However, on application filed by the respondent seeking vacation of interim protection granted to the petitioner, the interim order came to be modified on 20.11.2010 and it was observed that if the petitioner society is running its institution, the petitioner would be entitled to get government fund and not otherwise.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner on instructions submits that their institution is lying closed. However, his limited prayer is that since the interim order dt. 08.02.2010 was modified on 20.11.2010 at least for the intervening period they are entitled to get their funds released by the state authorities in terms of the agreement executed between the parties. Counsel for respondent submits that the modification was conditional and unless the petitioner could establish that institution was run by the petitioner during the intervening period only then will be entitled to get government fund and this being disputed question of fact could not be examined by this Court under its limited scope of judicial review U/Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THIS Court finds substance that whether the petitioner run its institution during the intervening period is a question of fact and that cannot be determined by this Court under its limited scope of judicial review U/Art. 226 of the Constitution. Without going into merits of the case any further, this Court considers it appropriate in the facts & circumstances of the instant case, to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make representation and enclose all documentary evidence in support thereof regarding the fact that the petitioner run its institution during the intervening period under the interim order of the Court dt. 08.02.2010 and if such representation is made, it is expected from the authority to examine & decide the same by passing a speaking order within four months thereafter and if the petitioner is found entitled for release of funds for the period in question the same may be released & paid to him if admissible under the law.;