yesssss HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT MLASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR.JT Appellant Petitioner WRIT APPEAL N0. 298 of 2010 Agrasen Mahavidyalaya, through Us Dlrector Dr. VK Agrawal, Jattusao h4ath Parisar, Purani Bastt, Raipur, (Chhattegarh), 492001. Versus Respondents 1. 2. Regional Director, National Council. for Teacher Educatton, Westem Regional CommUee, Manas Bhawan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopat (MP) National Councit tor Teacher Edtnation through te Member Secretary, New Delhi. Pwwnt: Mr. HB Agrawal.Sr. Advocate virith Ms. Rani Mutcharjee, counsel fer the appellant ORAL JUDOMENT (3rd September, PerDWnsncfra Misftra. J The petitioner-institute's recognitton for impartng educatton and conduct B.Ed. couree has been withdrawn by respondent No.1 vide tts order dated 12/18th May, 2010 on the ground that the petiUoner-instltute is not having proper inftastructure. The peBtfoner preferred an appeal against ttie order of respondent ^to.1 before respondent No.2 along with an applicrtton forstayon 15.6.2010. Grievance of the petitioner before the writ Court was that respwident No.2 has not decided his stay applteation in the peneBng appeal preferred by the instttution, whteh amounts to refusal and in these ciroumstances, the petitioner filed the petition and prayed for staying openation of the order dated 12/18 May, 2010withdravnng recogniUon ofthe petitioner's institute. Leamed Single Judge has dismissed the writ peUtion wtth an oteervation that no case has been made out to show any cause of acdon, ira/oking jurisdiction af this Court under Arttele 226 of the ConstlhiUon, in the instant petition and the petition is not maintainabto. Shri Agrawal, teamed counsel for the appellant submte ttiat respondent No.2 is an appetlato authority under SecUon 18 of the Nationat Council for Teacher EducaUon Act, 1993. The appeal preferred by Ure appellant herein is pending before respondent No.2 since June, 2010 and the .kiu' ••:&.-*:- .^5T\ ;lt ^. ^y'^/' y.'.'w^^' ISa§ \( writ petiUon was fited by the appellant only when respondent No.2 tailed to pass any order on his application for stay <rf die wder wfthdrawing recognition ofths petitioner-institute. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused ttie impugned order. The only relief the petitioner has claimed in tt»ewrit petitkm is that the order passed by respondent No.1 wtthdrawing recognition of the petiUoner's institute may be stayed pending appeal before respondent No.2. Since the appeat preferred by the petitioner/appellant is atready pending before respondent No.2 and there is no adverse order against the p^itioner's institute in the appeal, the petitioner had no cause <rf acUon to approach the High Court under Articte 226 of the Constitution and the writ peBUon has been rightly dismissed by tte impugned order. We find no substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. o Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge '-•Si^.f'^^^ T"-"