IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Interim Relief Application No.2118 of 2010 Misc. Application No.6163 of 2010 In Writ Petition No. 450 of 2010 (M/S) Shakuntala Devi Educational Institute Dehradun through its Secretary Sri S.P. Agarwal, S/o Late Sri B.N. Agarwal, Registered office 143/8 Karanpur, Dehradun. ……Petitioner. Versus Northern Regional Committee (N.R.C) National Council of Teachers Education (North Regi0n) A-46, Shantipath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, service through its Regional Director. …….Respondent. Mr. V.K.Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajendra Tamta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18-03- 2010, annexed as annexure No.1 to the writ petition, passed by the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education. Further it was prayed to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to act on the application of the petitioner as per Section 7(1) of the N.C.T.E. Act, regulation 2007. The impugned order dated 18-03-2010 has been annexed as annexure No.1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has applied for M.ED and B.P.ED courses. According to the petitioner, the objections were raised by the respondent to the effect that: - (i) The submitted Land document is not readable. (ii) The building plan has not been approved by competent authority. (iii) FDR of Rs. 5 Lakh has not been submitted. (iv) College Website has not been developed as per NCTE norms for M.Ed course The same conditions have been indicated pertaining to the B.P.ED course. So far as M.ED and B.P.Ed Courses are concerned as per the reply submitted by the Institution, the following discrepancies have been indicated for both the courses is UR-135 and UR 134 received on 8th February 2010, the following deficiency still exits “the submitted building plan is not approved by competent authority. Hence the committee decides to close the file and return FRS if submitted.” Now, according to the petitioner, the objections have been removed, which was raised by the authority and now the map is sanctioned. The map of the sanctioned plan had already been send to the respondent. The only objection raised by the respondent was that the sanctioned map passed by the competent authority was not submitted by the petitioner. Now according to the petitioner, the sanctioned map was send to the respondent. In view of the above facts, the respondent is directed that case of the petitioner regarding both the Course i.e. M.ED and B.P.ED be considered in the ensuing meeting of the respondent as per the N.C.T.E norms and regulations. With the said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) 25-08-2010 MK