( 1 ) THE petitioner who is the proprietrix of a Commerce Institute now represented by her Legal Representatives has again approached this Court in the 5th round of litigation challenging the orders of the authorities cancelling the recognition granted to her for running a Commerce Institute.

( 2 ) THE petitioner had made an application on 3-10-1970 for locating a Commerce Institute. That application was considered by the authorities in the year 1970 and by letter dt. 17-12-1970 the Director of Public Instruction informed the petitioner that permission was granted to start the Commerce Institute subject to the following conditions :1. She should secure atleast three well ventilated and spacious rooms in good locality. 2. She should provide Brand New Typewriters and new furnitures. 3. Appoint qualified and experienced Full-time teacher. Petitioner complied with these conditions and accordingly she was granted the recognition sought for. Petitioner was running the institute at the place where it was originally located. But, some time in the year 1972 the petitioner shifted the Institute from the original place to a place close to another Commerce Institute which was being run by the 5th respondent. It is common ground that the distance between the Institute of the 5th respondent and the Institute of the petitioner at the new location is about half a kilometre. Shifting of the Institute to the present location was intimated by the petitioner to the Assistant Director of Public Instruction, Bangalore, on 3-1-1972. The petitioner brought to his notice that the building in which her Institute was earlier located was a tenanted premises and she had occupied that premises on the clear understanding with the owner that she would vacate the same on securing an alternative accommodation; that the owner of the building was persistingly insisting her to vacate the premises as he required the same for his personal occupation and hence she was on the lookout for a suitable accommodation; that as there are only a few number of private buildings on the H. A. L. Main Road, as soon as a building was located, she occupied the same for the Institute; that she very much regretted for having shifted the Institute without prior intimation to him and accordingly she requested his permission to ratify the action taken by her. This representation of the petitioner which is produced as Annexure-B in the writ petition was favourably considered by the Joint Director of Public Instruction, Bangalore, who is the 4th respondent herein and by his letter dt. 25-4-1972 the petitioner was intimated that temporary recognition was granted for the year 1972-73 subject to the usual conditions. It was also mentioned therein that the petitioner should apply for renewal of recognition on or before 2nd Jan. , 1973. By this letter of the Joint Director, one thing is clear that the shifting of the premises by the petitioner was not held against her for granting temporary recognition for the year 1972-73. However, it transpires that the 5th respondent who, as noticed earlier, was running a Commerce Institute in the very same locality, complained to the authorities concerned about the shifting of the Institute by the petitioner from its original location to the present place. Presumably on this complaint, the Joint Director issued the notice to the petitioner under Annexure-D in the writ petition calling upon her to shift the Institute back to its original place or in the alternative to close down the Institute and issue transfer certificates to the concerned students and report the matter to his office on or before 26-3-1973. To this letter of the Joint Director, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation by her letter dt. 21-3-1973 after referring to her earlier letters dt. 1-2-1972 and 3-1-1972. For the purpose of this case it is sufficient to note the contentions taken by her in her representation dt. 21-3-1973. She submitted, among other grounds