1 wp 5109.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5109 OF 2011 Shahada Taluka Co-operative Education Society's Adhyapak Vidyalaya (D. Ed.) Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar, Through its Chairman, Motilal Fakira Patil, Age : Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar. .. Petitioner Versus 1. National Council for Teacher Education, Bahadursha Marg, Manas Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. Western Region Committee For National Council for Teacher Education, Manas Bhawan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal. .. Respondents Shri J. R. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. S. Bora, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5171 OF 2011 Tarkeshwari Vidya Prasarak Mandal Damarkheda, Taluka Shahada, District Nandurbar Sanchalit 2 wp 5109.11 Kai. Govind Chhagan Patil Adhyapak (D. Ed.) Vidyalaya, Tikhora, Tq. Shahada, District Nandurbar Through its Chairman Ganesh Govind Patil, Age : 58 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Shahada, Dist. Nandurgar. .. Petitioner Versus 1. National Council for Teacher Education, Bahadursha Marg, Manas Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. Western Region Committee For National Council for Teacher Education, Manas Bhawan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal. .. Respondents Shri J. R. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. S. Bora, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 and 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 3 wp 5109.11 2. Heard Shri J. R. Shah, the learned counsel for petitioners and Shri S. S. Bora, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. The petitioners are intending to start the Teacher Education Institute i. e. the D. Ed. Course and for the said purpose applied for permission and recognition to respondents. The respondents informed the petitioners about negative recommendations vide letter dated 23.05.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners filed representations before the authorities to consider their case in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Gangadhar Nilkanth Shinde Vs. The Union of India and others. As the representations were not been considered, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court. This Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw the said writ petitions with liberty to file appeal U/Sec. 18 of the N. C. T. E. Act within four weeks from the date of orders. The said order was passed on 09 th March, 2011. Thereafter, the petitioners filed appeals with the respondent No. 1 on 05 th April, 2011 i. e. within a period of four weeks as directed by this Court in writ petitions. The petitioners also filed an application for condonation of delay. The said applications are rejected by the respondent No. 1 vide order 4 wp 5109.11 dated 26 th May, 2011. 4. Shri Shah, the learned counsel for petitioners contends that the delay is caused in filing the appeal in view of the fact that the representations were filed and the same were pending. Thereafter, the writ petitions were filed and this Court allowed the petitioners to withdraw the writ petitions and file the appeals within a period of four weeks and the said appeals were filed within four weeks. The delay that is caused was not intentional and due to aforesaid reasons. 5. Shri Bora, the learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposes the petitions and submits that the petitioners could have filed appeals immediately instead of filing the representations which is not contemplated by the statute. The respondent No. 1 has considered all the aspects of the matter and has rightly rejected the applications. The order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. 6. After the communication was received by the petitioners from the respondent No. 2 that it has received negative recommendations from the State Government, the petitioners 5 wp 5109.11 had filed representations relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gangadhar Nilkanth Shinde referred supra and were waiting for the decision pursuant to the said representations. As the representations were not been decided, the petitioners even filed the writ petitions before this Court and this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file appeals within a period of four weeks. The appeals were presented within a period of four weeks. The aforesaid facts would show that the delay that is caused is not intentional one. But the petitioners were prosecuting their representations bonafidely. It is settled law that, when technical considerations and cause for substantial justice are pitted against each others, the cause for substantial justice shall be sub served. The authorities should have considered all these aspects and should have dealt with the matter. The right of appeal is substantive right. The same cannot be negated on technical grounds. Moreover, when the delay that is caused is not intentional one and the petitioners were also not going to gain anything by causing any delay. 7. In view of the above, I am inclined to condone the delay and allow these writ petitions, at the same time the petitioners also deserve to be mulct with the cost. In the result, I pass the 6 wp 5109.11 following order. O R D E R a. The writ petitions are allowed. b. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses “A” and “B” subject to the condition that the petitioners pay cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousands only) in each petition to the High Court Advocates’ Bar Association Library within a period of four weeks from today. c. The respondents shall register the appeals if it otherwise complies with all other legal requirements and decide the same on its own merits. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11