AJAY BHANOT, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today be taken on record.

2. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent CBSE Board and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.

3. By order dated 01.11.2018 the respondent CBSE Board has withdrawn the provisional affiliation granted to the petitioner institution upto senior secondary level. Thus aggrieved by the disaffiliation the petitioner has assailed the said order in the instant writ petition.

4. The order recites that the institution has violated the affiliation bye-laws relating to infrastructure. The school building and the playground are not part of a compact piece of land. The petitioner was granted several opportunities to cure the deficiency. The petitioner failed to rectify the defect.

5. The submission of Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition is that the order of disaffiliation of the institution is an arbitrary exercise of power. The bye-laws of the institution do not contemplate that the school buildings as well as the playgrounds should be located in a compact piece of land. He called attention to the relevant bye-laws of affiliation of the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereafter referred to as 'CBSE'). Secondly, the petitioner had made all out efforts to secure permission to construct an over-bridge from the land housing the school building to the vacant piece of land on which the playground was situated. The permission was denied by the State authorities. The petitioner cannot be faulted for orders passed by the said authorities since they are matters beyond the control of the petitioner. Thirdly, a number of schools affiliated to the CBSE are having playgrounds which are not part of a compact piece of land containing school buildings as well as the playground. It is then contended that the petitioners have an alternative piece of land which is large enough to accommodate the school building and the playground in one compact area. The petitioner has made an application seeking permission for two years to construct the school building and requisite infrastructure with a view to run the school from an alternative piece of land. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a communication dated 05.09.2016. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel, submits that the petitioner institution has been running without incident over long years. Consideration of equity arising from an incident free past and long continuance have not been factored in the order impugned.

6. Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent Board in opposition to the writ petition submits that the requirement of compact piece of land is mandatory. There has to be contiguity in the land area where the school building stands and the playground is situated. The purpose of providing a playground would be defeated if the playground is far removed or difficult to access from the school building. He further contends that number of opportunities were given to the petitioner to cure the aforesaid deficiency, but the petitioner failed to do so.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that there cannot be parity in illegality. The assertion of the petitioner that some CBSE affiliated schools have playgrounds and buildings situated in plots which are not compact or contiguous, even if true, cannot come to its rescue. Lastly in regard to the alternative piece of land it is contended that this submission is being raised for the first time. It was not presented to the authorities prior to passing of the impugned order. He calls attention to the communication dated 05.09.2016 to buttress his contention that no serious offer of an alternative site was made. The communication d