THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28919 OF 2009 Dated 14th July, 2010 Between: Madeena B.Ed College, M.G.Road, Kothagudem …Petitioner And National Council for Teacher Education and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Santosh Kumar for Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri T.Ramesh Babu for Sri B.Adinarayana Rao The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 26.11.2009 of respondent No.1 confirming order dated 06.10.2008 of respondent No.2. I have heard Sri A.Santosh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel representing Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is an Educational Society, which is running a B.Ed College at Kothagudem, Khammam District. The College was established in the year 2002-2003 with an intake capacity of 100 students in pursuance of the recognition granted by respondent No.2 under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. One of the conditions of recognition was that the petitioner should run the College in its own premises or in the premises under a long lease for more than 33 years. On the ground that the petitioner did not fulfil the said condition, respondent No.2 issued show cause notice dated 28.05.2008 as to why the recognition granted shall not be cancelled. Vide letter dated 21.06.2008, the petitioner informed respondent No.2 that the permanent building which is being constructed by it on its own site is nearing completion and that the College will be shifted to the said building soon. The petitioner also submitted a building completion certificate issued by the Architect on 17.06.2008. An inspection team was deputed by respondent No.2 for inspection. It is alleged that the inspection team visited the site on 16.09.2008 and that the petitioner did not cooperate with the inspection team in carrying out the inspection. By its order dated 06.10.2008, respondent No.2 has withdrawn the recognition granted to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to comply with the essential condition of shifting the College to a permanent building within a period of three years, which expired on 21.02.2007. The said order was confirmed in appeal filed by the petitioner by respondent No.1 in its order dated 26.11.2009. Assailing these two orders, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner could not shift the College to its own building before the expiry of three years, in its letter dated 21.06.2008, the petitioner has categorically stated that the permanent building owned by the Society is nearing completion and that the institution will be shifted to the said building very soon. He also submitted that the finding that the petitioner did not cooperate with the inspection team on 16.09.2008 is factually incorrect, as due to heavy floods and rains in Khammam District, the inspection team could not carry out the inspection. The learned counsel representing the respondents, opposing the above contentions, submitted that from the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2, it is clearly evident that the petitioner has not only violated the mandatory condition of shifting the College to a permanent building either of its own or taken on lease for a long period of not less than 33 years, it has also failed to cooperate with the inspecting team during their inspection. He further submitted that in letter dated 08.07.2010 addressed by respondent No.2 to the petitioner, with a copy marked to the learned Standing Counsel, it is informed that the petitioner has submitted a photocopy of building completion certificate from a Private Engineer and that it is required to produce the certificate from a Government Engineer and accordingly the petitioner was requested to submit such a certificate as per Regulation 8 (10) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations, 2002 (for short “the Regulations”). I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner could not shift the College to a permanent building within the stipulated period of three years. However, in reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has claimed that the building is nearing completion and that the College will be shifted very soon. Respondent No.1 in its order observed that when the inspection team visited on 16.09.2008, the petitioner has not cooperated in carrying out the inspection. However, the petitioner has specifically pleaded before respondent No.1 that due to heavy floods and rains in Khammam District, the inspection team could not carry out the inspection. Be that as it may, the purpose of the condition to shift the College to a permanent building, stipulated by the respondents in the recognition order granted by them is to ensure that the Colleges are run with proper infrastructure and to enable the Educational Institutions to overcome the initial teething troubles, they are given three years’ time for this purpose. This condition in the view of the Court is salutary. Otherwise the students of these Educational Institutions will suffer if they are allowed to continue in environment without adequate facilities. But the controversy in the present case is quite narrowed down in view of the stand taken by the petitioner that the construction of the permanent building has already been completed. Even from letter dated 08.07.2010 addressed by respondent No.2 referred to above, the petitioner has furnished a building completion certificate albeit, given by a Private Engineer and it has called upon the petitioner to submit a certificate issued by the competent Government authority or local body in terms of Regulation 8 (10) of the Regulations. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that to balance the interests of the petitioner and public interest, it is appropriate that respondent No.2 reconsiders its decision on continuing recognition to the petitioner subject to the following terms. (1) Within four (4) weeks from today, the petitioner shall produce the building completion certificate from the competent authority as envisaged in Regulation 8 (10) of the Regulations. (2) The petitioner shall also comply with other legal formalities, if any, required for the purpose of continuing the recognition. (3) On receipt of the building completion certificate from the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall consider the same, pass an appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the certificate. (4) Till the above exercise is completed, interim order dated 31.12.2009 shall continue. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 14th July, 2010 vrn