IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1168 of 2010 Date of Decision : December 15, 2011. Nar Singh Dass Memorial Education Society .....Petitioner versus Union of India and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.P.S.Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Naveen S.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-Society is aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2009 (Annexure P-1) whereby recognition to run the B.Ed. Degree Course has been declined to it and the appeal preferred by it against the said order has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority of the National Council for Teachers Education vide order 11.9.2009 (Annexure P-2). Suffice it to observe that the petitioner-Society was declined recognition to run the B.Ed. Degree Course on account of certain deficiencies in the infrastructure created by it to run the college which have been duly noticed by the National Council for Teachers Education (for CWP No.1168 of 2010 [2] short 'the NCTE') in the impugned order. Those deficiencies have also been pointed out by the NCTE in preliminary submission No.2 of its reply- affidavit. On 30.5.2011, when the matter came up for hearing, the following stand was taken on behalf of the petitioner. “....Learned counsel for the petitioner states that all the deficiencies which were pointed out vide Annexures P-1 and P-2 have since been met. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, however, disputes this. Keeping in view the controversy involved, I deem it appropriate to adjourn the matter for 15.12.2011. In the meantime, the petitioner shall furnish a fresh compliance list to the respondents pointing out that the entire deficiencies which were noticed by the respondents have since been met and in such an eventuality, the respondents shall pass an order within a period of one week thereafter.....” It thus appear that the petitioner-Society in deference to the above reproduced order has applied to the NCTE for fresh consideration of its request for the grant of recognition. In any case, in view of the categoric stand taken on behalf of the petitioner-Society that the deficiencies earlier pointed out by the NCTE have since been removed, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner-Society to again apply to the NCTE for grant of recognition to it and if any such application has already been moved or to be moved by the petitioner-Society, the same shall be objectively considered by the Authority of the NCTE in accordance with their Regulations, within a CWP No.1168 of 2010 [3] period of two months from the date of receipt of such application, uninfluenced of their earlier decision. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. December 15, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE