HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 441 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved of the order dated 21.11.2025 passed in Writ - C No. 11195 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The writ petition was filed on 29.10.2025, aggrieved of the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, whereby the claim made by the petitioner for grant-in-aid for the Primary Section has been rejected. 3. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the petitioner, came to the conclusion that petition was filed with an unexplained delay of over 2 years and that there was no substance in the petition even otherwise and consequently, dismissed the same. 4. Counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the petition. Submissions have been made that once the Court reached to the conclusion that the petition was delayed, the issues ought not to have been decided on merits. Further submissions have been made that the rejection of the claim by the respondents for grant-in-aid is not justified. 5. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Krishna Madhav Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Nishant Shukla (A.C.S.C.) C/M Sri Vaidik Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Saryubagh Ayodhya through Manager Devesh Upadhayay .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 2 others .....Respondent(s) material available on record. 6. A bare look at the order passed by the respondents on 25.09.2023 reveals that the claim of the appellant for grant-in-aid was examined on several parameters laid down and practically on each parameters, it was indicated that the appellant does not fulfill the requirement for being provided grant-in-aid. 7. The finding, inter alia, pertained to there being no recognition available with the appellant-institution, the enrolled number of students being 40 and only 5 students being available in 5 classes. Further indications were made that the classrooms were being used for keeping fodder for the animals and were being used for residing by people living therein. 8. A perusal of the writ petition filed reveals that not a word has been indicated questioning the findings recorded by the respondents for rejecting the claim for grant-in-aid. Once the factual findings, as recorded, have not been assailed, no case is made out by the appellant for interference by this Court on the grounds raised in the petition. 9. So far as the plea raised pertaining to deciding the matter both on limitation and merit is concerned, the plea sought to be raised looses its significance, once having examined the matter on merits, we do not find any substance. 10. Consequently, the appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. December 19, 2025 Harshita/Mukesh Pal SPLA No. 441 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench