(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the order dated 4-6-1990 (Exhibit `b) passed by the second respondent Director of Education permitting the fourth respondent to open a new Standard VIII Class from 1990 onwards. Incidental reliefs also have been sought for. On 14-6-1990 rule was issued, with a direction for expendition. Ultimately it came up for final arguments on 22-8-1991. In the light of the arguments advanced at the Bar, we had our reservations about the supportive materials justifying the impunged order. A further affidavit was directed, by our order dated 22-8-1991, to assist the Court to advert to and evaluate the materials so called for. The affidavit has accordingly been filed. The petitioners filed a rejoinder. Arguments were continued on 9-9-1991.
(2.) IT is unnecessary to refer to the details of the contentions in view of the course we propose to adopt. We may, however, indicate even for that purpose, an earlier order (Exhibit `a) dated 9-7-1986 passed by the Director, which declined the request for opening a new school as made by the very same fourth respondent herein. The first paragraph can be usefully extracted:---
(3.) WE noticed two disturbing features in the issue of the order. One is the fact that it is issued in a cyclostyled form. This can be evidence of non-application of mind in given circumstances. Employment of such cyclostyled forms have been critically commented upon by judicial decisions as for example in Travancore-Rayons case.