1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4312 / 2010 (Ekvira Devi Education Society vs. Regional Director of National Council and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : D.D.SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ DATED : 10th February, 2011. Heard Mr. P.P. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.S.Kaptan, for respondent no.1 and Mr. B.G. Kulkarni with Smt. A.P.Shinde, for Respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-society has applied for permission to run the B.Ed. College to the Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education Education, Bhopal, ( in short “NCTE”) for academic session 2008-09. It is submitted that the permission was granted by the NCTE to run the B.Ed. College with intake capacity of 100 students. It is submitted that the B.Ed. College's intake capacity of 100 students was maintained for the academic sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10. However, in the educational year 2010-11, the intake capacity of the students was reduced to 25 from 100 and, 2 therefore, the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the permission to admit 100 students was granted by the NCTE and, therefore, the respondent no.4-University has neither jurisdiction nor power to reduce the same and,therefore, the communication issued by respondent no.4 dated 17th July 2010 addressed to respondent no.3, is not proper. Mr. B.G.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent no.4-University has submitted that the NCTE has evolved a regulation which is called as “National Council for Teacher Education Recognition, Norms and Procedure Regulations 2009. In view of these Regulations, the strength of the intake capacity of the College is based on number of teachers. As per the said norms for 25 students there should be one teacher. It is submitted that after due verification of the strength of teachers in the B.Ed. College run by the petitioner-society, the intake capacity should be only 25 students and, therefore, the respondent no.4 vide communication dated 17th July 2010 issued to Respondent No.3- Director of Higher Education was informed accordingly. The learned AGP has submitted that on the basis of information received from the University the intake capacity of the College run by the petitioner-society came to be reduced to 25 students. 3 Mr. Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent no.1 has submitted that the procedure adopted by the respondent in reducing the intake capacity on their own without obtaining permission of NCTE, is not just and proper and University ought to have sent the proposal in this regard to the Regional Director, NCTE for necessary action. It is submitted that as per the rules and regulations of NCTE, the strength of the students no doubt is required to be determined on the basis of the strength of teachers. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the recognition has been granted to the petitioner-society to run the B.Ed. College for academic session 2008-09 with intake capacity of 100 students. It is also not in dispute that as per the regulations of NCTE the strength of students needs to be determined on the basis of strength of the teacher in the institution. Learned counsel for NCTE has submitted that it is the NCTE who is competent body to look into these aspects based on the proposal received in this regard by the University. Mr Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent no.4, at this stage, has submitted that the University shall forward the proposal in respect of intake capacity of the B.Ed. College run by the petitioner for academic session 2011-12 and the said proposal will be as per the norms evolved by the NCTE in this regard, as early as possible. Mr Kaptan, has submitted that on receipt of such a proposal from 4 the respondent no.4-University, the Respondent no.1 shall take appropriate decision in respect of the intake capacity of the B.E.d College rub by the petitioner for the relevant academic sessions. In view of the above-referred facts, particularly in view of the statements made by Mr Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent no.4 as well as Kaptan for respondent no.1, the cause of action involved in the present petition no more survives. Hence Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE sahare