14. This Court is of the view that it is not possible to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the mandate of the above Bye-law would stand satisfied if the school had 1 acre land in one plot and 0.5 acre land in another plot, located 900 meters away. It may be noted, here, that it is an admitted position that the entire 1 acre in the first plot was occupied by the school building and the entire 0.5 acres located 900 meters away was occupied by the playground. Such an arrangement could not be treated to be in fulfillment of Bye-law 3(i)(ii)(a) of the Affiliation Bye-Laws. The stipulation of the school requiring to possess 1.5 acres, in my opinion, necessarily means that the area of 1.5 acres should be located at one plot and not in two places located nearly 1 kilometer apart. An interpretation, such as that canvassed by Mr. Sherawat, if accepted, would in my opinion, frustrate the very purpose of the stipulation contained in bye-law 3(i)(ii)(a) of the Affiliation Bye-Laws. I may note that, in its decision in Richa Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 4 SCC 179 , the Supreme Court has held that the golden rule of interpretation has, in recent times, shifted from the rule of literal interpretation to that of purposive interpretation. If one were to interpret the Bye-law purposively, no exception could, in
