Civil Writ Petition No. 16468 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16468 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.07.2010 Mahender Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anamika Negi, Advocate ***** RANJIT SINGH J. This petition is filed by Mahender Singh, who claims to be a president of Shri Ram Shiksha Samiti registered at Mahendergarh, Haryana. The petitioner has impugned order dated 01.06.2009 and order 07.08.2009 whereby the prayer for grant of recognition for conducting B.Ed. course stands declined. Prayer further is to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the permission sought. Civil Writ Petition No. 16468 of 2009 2 It is stated in the reply that the team of Northern Region Committee (NCTE) visited the institution and noticed certain deficiencies which were duly pointed out to the petitioner. The petitioner would not dispute that indeed these deficiencies were there but submit that these deficiencies have since been removed. In response to this submission, the counsel appearing for NCTE would submit that certain documents were produced at the appellate stage to show that the deficiencies have been removed. However, the authenticity of those documents could not be checked. Counsel further submits that the action of the petitioner to remove the deficiencies at the appellate stage can not relevantly relate back the date when the impugned order was passed declining the permission keeping in view of those deficiencies. If the case of the petitioner is that the deficiencies, as noticed, have been removed then the petitioner can move an appropriate application, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. This is so agreed to by the counsel for the respondents. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh application seeking grant of recognition. July 29, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE