IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2616 of 2010 Date of Decision: 07.11.2011 Guru Har Krishan Rai Educational Society ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State of Punjab. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The petitioner society seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to release 'Grant-in-Aid' on the basis of the petitioner's undertaking to run a school for the specially challenged children of deaf & dumb category. The reply affidavit filed by the State of Punjab reveals that the name of the petitioner-NGO was short-listed by the Grant-in-Aid Committee to run the Residential Bridge Courses (RBC) of limited duration for disabled children and the petitioner- NGO was asked to furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of 25% of the total budget outlay proposed by it and then to fulfill other conditions like enrollment of 50 students etc. The petitioner-NGO is said to have failed to comply with those conditions and as such its name was not approved for the 'grant-in-aid' and neither any agreement was executed between the Department and the petitioner- NGO nor any written assurance was ever given by the respondents to release the same. CWP No. 2616 of 2010 [2] 2. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Authority, Punjab has also filed its separate reply/affidavit reiterating the same plea. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I am of the considered view that in the absence of any commitment on behalf of the respondents to provide 'grant in aid', no direction to release the same can be issued only because at one stage the petitioner's claim was processed by the authorities. The principle of “promissory estoppel” thus cannot be invoked by the petitioner. However, it shall not preclude the petitioner-society to represent the State Government, if it is still running the institute to impart education to specially challenged children, and if there is a Scheme to provide grant-in-aid, the authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner's society also in accordance with their policy and subject to the eligibility conditions uninfluenced of their previous decision. Suffice it to observe that the State or for that matter the society as a whole is under obligation to provide meaningful education and avocation to the specially challenged children for their inclusive growth so as to bring them in the mainstream of the society. With these directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 07.11.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE