IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP 2707 of 2010. Decided on September 30, 2010 Kshatriya College of Education ..Petitioner. Versus Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant Sh. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondent Sh. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 1, whereby, the file, with respect to its request for grant of recognition to its college for running Diploma Course in Elementary Education, has been closed. The decision has been taken in the meeting of the respondent held on 24th to 27th March, 2010. Reasons given for closing the file are that the petitioner did not submit the FDRs in original, and also, the building plan, submitted by it, did not indicate Khasra numbers. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that request of another college, i.e. Gautam College of Education, who also sought recognition for running the same Diploma Course, had not been turned down, though some deficiencies in its file, were also there, but time was given to the said college to remove those deficiencies. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. It has been stated by the respondent that in the case of Gautam College of Education, deficiencies have been noticed, for the first time, in the meeting held on 24th to 27th March, 2010, while in the case of the petitioner, deficiencies had been noticed earlier and it was required to remove those deficiencies, vide communication, dated 18.1.2010, copy Annexure P-2. Despite 60 days time, having been given in the said communication, for removal of deficiencies, petitioner failed to remove two of such deficiencies. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that request of even Gautam College of Education has also been rejected, on account of its having failed to remove deficiencies. It is further submitted by him that after the rejection of its case, Gautam College of Education, has appealed to the appellate authority, as per provision of Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Act). He submits that the - 3 - petitioner has also remedy of appeal, available to him under the said provision, but without availing that remedy, he has straightway rushed to the Court. 7. Section 18 of the Act, provides for appeal to the Council, against an order of Regional Committee, refusing to grant recognition to an institution, running or intending to run any diploma course. That means, the remedy available to the petitioner was to have filed an appeal to the Council. It, having not availed of that remedy, which was an efficacious one, writ petition is disposed of, with the order that petitioner may now file an appeal, under Section 18 of the Act, and if he files such an appeal, period spent by him in pursuing the present writ petition, i.e. from 26.5.2010 to 30.9.2010, shall be excluded, while computing limitation. September 30, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.