THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.20391 OF 2008 ORDER : The 1st petitioner is a society which intended to establish the 2nd petitioner college for conducting Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Programme. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration the order of the 2nd respondent – National Council for Teacher Education (for short, ‘NCTE’) – dated 11.1.2008 thereby refusing to grant recognition to the 2nd petitioner college for conducting B.Ed. Programme as confirmed in Appeal by the 1st respondent - Appellate Authority – by order dated 19.08.2008 as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Initially, the 1st petitioner made an application dated 3.11.2006 seeking grant of recognition to start B.Ed. College at Tarlupadu Village of Prakasam District. While the application was under consideration by the 2nd respondent, differences arose amongst the members of the 1st petitioner society with regard to the location of college at Tarlupadu, Prakasam District. Subsequently, the 1st petitioner society decided to change the proposed location of college from Tarllupadu Village, Prakasam District to Ravipadu Village, Narsaraopet Mandal, Guntur District and accordingly submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent on 14.5.2007. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent conducted an inspection on 20.06.2007. Thereafter, by letter dated 30.08.2007 the 2nd petitioner was informed that the requirements specified therein were not fulfilled and the 2nd petitioner was called upon to submit documentary proof duly certified by the competent authority with respect to the deficiencies notified along with an affidavit and fresh VCD supporting removal of the deficiencies pointed out. In response to the same, the 2nd petitioner by letter dated 20.09.2007 submitted the documentary proof to show that they have complied with all the necessary requirements. However, the 2nd respondent by a cryptic order dated 11.1.2008 rejected the request of the 2nd petitioner stating that the petitioners failed to satisfy the following requirements : “(1) The building is roofed with asbestos sheets not suitable and space also is not adequate for B.Ed. course. (2) The equipments in science, psychology and E.T. Labs are not adequate.” Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an Appeal on 11.03.2008 before the 1st respondent. By order dated 19.08.2008 the said Appeal was dismissed confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Hence the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 are arbitrary and illegal. As could be seen, the recognition to the 2nd petitioner for starting B.Ed. course was rejected by the 2nd respondent firstly on the ground that the building roofed with asbestos sheets was not suitable and space was also not adequate for B.Ed. course. The second ground of rejection was that the equipments in science, psychology and E.T. Labs were not adequate. The specific case of the petitioners is that both the above said grounds are factually incorrect. The petitioners state that along with the compliance report dated 20.09.2007 all the necessary documents were submitted to substantiate the claim of the petitioners that the deficiencies pointed out in the 2nd respondent’s proceedings dated 30.08.2007 were complied with and it was also explained that the 1st petitioner society had taken on lease a built up premises of 16,897 sft. housed in three floors for 30 years for B.Ed. Course only and no other course is existing in the said building. However, without considering the compliance report dated 20.09.2007 along with the documents, the 2nd respondent refused the recognition by order dated 11.01.2008. In the Memorandum of Grounds raised before the 1st respondent – Appellate authority – the petitioners urged that neither the documentary proof submitted by them nor the facilities noticed by the visiting team were considered by the 2nd respondent and the order of refusal was passed without application of mind to the material available on record. However, the 1st respondent – Appellate Authority – dismissed the Appeal merely on the basis of alleged contradictions in the documents submitted by the petitioners without referring to any of the other documents produced by the petitioners to show that they are having all infrastructural and instructional facilities provided for running B.Ed. college and that the built-up area is adequate and all the sheds are only for toilets and for parking the vehicles. Even assuming that the proposed leased premises was not specific about the built up area, the 1st respondent - Appellate authority – ought to have directed fresh inspection of the premises in view of the assertion made by the petitioners that all the requirements were satisfied. Moreover, it is apparent from the order of the Appellate Authority dated 19.08.2008 that none of the documents submitted by the petitioners were taken into consideration. It is also relevant to note that the 1st respondent – Appellate Authority – while dismissing the Appeal observed that since there were many contradictions in the documents submitted by the institution, there was no justification for accepting the Appeal. The said contradictions was never communicated to the petitioners and there was no opportunity to the petitioners to clarify the alleged contradictions. It is not open to the 1st respondent – Appellate Authority – to reject the Appeal on different set of reasons which were never communicated to the petitioners. In the circumstances, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the 1st respondent is vitiated by non-application of mind apart from being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the 1st respondent dated 19.08.2008 is liable to be set aside and the matter requires reconsideration by the 1st respondent after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their case. Accordingly, the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the Appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 11.01.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is also made clear that before passing such order, the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to substantiate their case and it is also open to the 1st respondent to direct fresh inspection of the premises of the petitioners if necessary. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 29.04.2009 gbs