LPA No.10 of 2005. 21.07.2009 Present: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for the appellants. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.1575 of 1996 dated 19th October, 2004. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this Letter Patent Appeal are that the respondent had filed CWP No.1575 of 1996 seeking direction to the State Government for release of 95% grant-in-aid. The case of the State Government in nut shell was that it was not possible to release the grant-in-aid due to financial crunch. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood has vehemently argued that the judgment of the learned Single Jude is not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to him, it was necessary for the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the plea raised by the State of financial crisis. Mr. Rahul Mahajan has supported the judgment of learned Single Judge, dated 19th October, 2004. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only ground taken by the State Government not to release the grant-in-aid to the respondent-Institution is financial crisis. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. Vs. H.P. State Recognised and Aided Schools Managing Committees and others, (1995) 4 SCC 507 and on the basis of the judgment rendered in CWP No.1943 of 1996 titled Rajesh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others, has repelled this contention. We are in agreement with the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge. It is the duty cast upon the State to release the grant-in-aid so long as the provisions of H.P. Education Code are applicable and the State Government is precluded from either denying the grant-in-aid or showing its inability for such release. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is well reasoned. Accordingly, we see no merit in this Letter Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 7.9.2005 and confirmed vide order dated 26.12.2005 is vacated. No costs. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 21, 2009. (sck)