1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3199 OF 2011 (Mahila Seva Samaj Sanstha vs. The National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. SEPTEMBER 29, 2011. Heard Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for the respondents. By the impugned order dated 22.04.2009/ 01.05.2009, the proposal of the petitioner for starting additional sections in existing D. Ed. College has been closed. Shri Mirza, learned counsel points out that proposal was complete in all respects and as required, an amount of Rs. Sixteen lac was also deposited towards the endowment fund and reserve fund. The respondents have returned only an amount of Rs. Eight lac as per communication dated 24.03.2011 and balance amount is retained by it. By inviting attention to the provisions of Sections 14 & 15 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, it is urged that the Act 2 empowers the respondents either to grant such application or then to reject it. The rejection has to be for valid reasons and Section 15 requires the respondents to extend to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before such reasons are accepted. According to him, here, the petitioner was given a show cause notice pointing out some lacunae after joint inspection and it was replied on 25.11.2008. That reply was to be considered in the meeting of Western Regional Committee (Respondent No. 2) on 7/8th December 2008. However, on that date, the said show cause notice or compliance as reported has not been gone into and for some other reasons, Respondent No. 2 has refused to process further the application. The learned counsel states that this is nothing but refusal to exercise jurisdiction. It is contended that thus, the impugned order dated 22.04.2009/01.05.2009 deserves to be treated as rejection and as the petitioner has not been accorded appropriate opportunity, the order is unsustainable. Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for the respondents has invited attention to affidavit-in-reply to point out that after inspection on 11.05.2008, a show cause notice dated 09.09.2008 was served upon the petitioner pointing out five deficiencies. The petitioner then replied it on 25.11.2008 and hence it 3 cannot be said that the petitioner was not given appropriate opportunity. When that show cause notice and compliance was to be looked into by Respondent No. 2, a policy decision dated 31.10.2008 taken by Respondent No. 1 was received. As per that policy decision, Respondents have decided not to sanction any D. Ed. Course in the State of Maharashtra till 2012-13 and a negative recommendation of State Government was also decided to be accepted as one of the valid considerations. He urges that decisions not to sanction such course in the State of Maharashtra were taken earlier also. In this background, he points out that though in reply affidavit filed, the word used is rejection of proposal, the impugned order actually refuses to process further said proposal. The attention is invited to the orders dated 19.07.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2825 of 2010 to contend that in an identical situation, this Court has maintained that order and extended to said petitioner an opportunity to apply again whenever respondent No. 1 decides to change its policy. He, therefore, contends that same course of action needs to be followed even in present matter. In reply, Shri Mirza, learned counsel, states that in Writ Petition No. 2825 of 2010, 4 challenge was not to an order passed under Section 15 and the provisions of Section 15 contemplate an opportunity of hearing in this respect. He further states that the use of word rejection in reply affidavit filed by the respondents in paras 7 & 8 is incorrect. We have considered the controversy in the light of these arguments. It is apparent that Division Bench of this Court on 19.07.2011 was not required to consider the controversy appearing in Section 15(3). The matter before the Division Bench was of a new institution and hence the provisions of Section 14 were applicable. Section 14(3) also carries similar proviso but then it appears that the petitioner there had not made any grievance about absence of such an opportunity. Here, after noticing deficiencies, a show cause notice dated 09.09.2008 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner had replied to it and compliance as reported by him was to be examined by Respondent No. 2 in its meeting to be conducted on 7/8th December 2008. But then in that meeting, because of instructions dated 31.10.2008, this show cause notice or its reply has not been gone into. The facts also show that the impugned order though employes the words “the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this case” clearly show that the petitioner is not getting desired 5 permission. His proposal is not kept pending and hence the proposal has been rejected. Accordingly, in reply affidavit, the word “rejected” has been used by the respondents. The rejection is not on the grounds communicated to the petitioner vide show cause notice. The rejection is because of some other material, of which the petitioner had no notice. It is, therefore, obvious that the proviso to Section 15(3) needed compliance. Even before this Court, the said direction dated 31.10.2008 is not produced by the respondents. It also deserves to be noted that only 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner has been refunded to it. If the respondents had power to refuse to consider or to process such application, then in the absence of any specific proviso to the contrary, the entire amount of Rs.16 lac needed to be refunded. In this situation, we direct the respondents to issue appropriate show cause notice in the light of the material with it to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioner shall file its reply to it within a further period of three weeks and then Respondents shall consider that reply and take appropriate decision in accordance with law afresh in the matter within a further period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of reply from the 6 petitioner. Subject to this, the impugned order dated 22.04.2009/ 01.05.2009 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.