Petitioner Resgondents \ ‘ . N THE HIGH COURT OF JtJDICATURE AT BILASPU ' CHHATTISGARH G/a’l/ib Memorial Educational Society, A Society registered under the Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 having its office at 'C' Market Sector 6, Bhilai, District Durg, (C.G), through lits' President Mohd. Tahir Khan, S/o Late Mohd. Ismal Khan, aged about 59' years, R70 House No. 16-A, Stree No. 30, Sector 7, Bhilai, tDistIict-Durg, Chhattisgarh Veru ss _ ' LLUVnion Of india, through its Secretary, I Ministry of School Education. an Literacy, Sashtri Bhawan ‘ New Delhi ‘ / 2. National 'Council fo Teacher Education, through, its Secretary Hans Bhawan, ‘Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg New Delhi, 1 10 002 f Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, National Council fo Teacher Education, Mana Bhawan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal, M.P / 4. Steel Authority of Indi Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, through its Managing Director, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITIOMC) N9Q 926% /201o e SINGLE BtNEH i t K d , r , , ‘ r s a — I R WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22‘ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITIWRITS, DIRECTIONS ETC.. IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE x ® §HGH CO R R I URT OFCHHAT’LTISGAH AT,BtLASPU WTPETIO RITIN (), C No. 293'o 4f 2010 z i al Sty; Galib Memoral- Education ocie VERUS S ‘ U Others nion of India & . PER ETITION RFQPDT ONENS RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIO I SB Hon’ble Shn Satlsh K. Agnlhotrl, J hrl Rajeev Shrlvastava Advocate for the petltloner hrl Bhaskar Payas1 Advocate for the respondent No 2 RDER (ORAL) Passed on 02“ da of August, 20 Pent: res P) p y he /5 assed b the respondent No 3 has been affirmed by t esondent No 2 dechnmg to grant recogn1t1on for D E courses h r1ef facts 1n nutshell are that the pet1t10ner-soc1ety has bee Te b n rg n the prem1ses 1n d1spute s1nce 2005 Thereafter t p t codu D he? rp ffil unnln BIEd course 1 he etltloner-soc1ety mad ,_ an apphcatlon for grant of recogmlon to nct Ed course The request of the pet1t1oner was reJected" by t esondent No 3 onth gr lund that pet1t1oner 1nst1tutlon dld not ull 2007 or short the Regulations, 2007) Thereagamst e pellone referred an appeal before the respondent No 2 The respondent No avm cons1dered all the aspects d1sm1ssed the appeal and confrme _ the order‘dated 25.03.2010 (Anneure PS). x / W N OF NDIA S S & 3 O ' y 10) ( _ I, t > p d (f th ttr p 2 hg id rne o s revail. However, no ulng'sal be taen on ease fo unning any teacher training Cours x xx x x xx r. Clause 5.1.A) of the lease deed dated 23.12.1982 (AnnexureP/4) rea 7 ds as uder: n “5. PROVIDED ALWAYS AND IT IS HEREBY XPRESSLY agree etween "the parties hereto, as E d b ollows: x XXX xx i A) The lease shall be renewable at the otion of‘eithe arty for a further period of trty years on the sam erms andiconditiOns asherein without thecovenant fo enewa provided the party esrng such extensio iven tothe 0th ' party-during he last year of the intia erm of this lease but nOt later than six months prior t he e’Xpiration of the said term notice of‘its intention o uch reneWal x XX 9 vs ' f xxx L p r p hi e t r rl dii n g l t o t f s . xxx xx ndisputably, the'petitioner was granted-recognition to run B.Edr cour I se n 200,5 whenthe lease of the petitionerwasr avilable only for 7- years ndat that time, the'question of having lease-for 30 years from theydat f making application, was not, rased. 'It appeas ta when t io i r ht he pplieation‘was made for grant of rec’Ognition for running D;Ed course a , the question of not having 3,0 years lease from the date of makin : g pplication; was raised a . n erusal of the lease deed», it appears that the lease was initia ‘t O p lly xecutedfor a period of 30 years on 23.12.1982 Which is still valid for e a eriod, of more than two years. There is a clear clause 5.1.(A) whic p h provides for extension of-the lease period. Thus, there seems to 'be‘ no r n eason to reject the application‘of the petitioner On this ground that i f t i \not in possession of land on lease for 30 act he petitoner-society is period of nOt less than’30 years. In cases Where under releVant State or Union Territory laws the maximum permissible lease period is less‘than 30 years, the State G0vemnt r Union Territory Adminitration law shall p bidihl k l r r e. xx xxx x xx xx x 3 X XXX XXX XXX i a i ia e, ’ ee provisioh- for extensienr oftime for further periodlof 30‘years. There is no dispute that the extension of '30 years cannot be granted eforeexir of 30 years fromithe flrstfdate of execution of‘the leas bpy e eed. It is .not possible to get the lease deed renewed as per claus d e f ded. 5.1.(A) beore expiry o'f-the lease e In View of the foregoing, the. respondent No.’ 2 and-3' are directed t onsider the case of the petitioner'afresh and pass appropriate order a c s g, i e h e xpeditiously as possible, preferably before 20t August, as the last dat o 3“ . f admission to the D.Ed courses is 1 August, 2010 ? W is ith the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition isposed of. No order aS‘to’ cost d s. *years, may be at this stage only twd years remains; But thr is a clear o