THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.11831 of 2009 Dated 27th July, 2011 Between: Sri Raghavendra Educational Society …Petitioner And The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, 1st Floor, CSD Buildings, HMT Post, Jalahalli, Bangalore, Karnataka State and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.A.K.Mynoddin Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri K.Vidyasagar For Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for School Education The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in closing the petitioner’s application vide proceedings No.F.SRO/NCTE/2009-10/12018, dated 27.04.2009, by relying on letter of respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, Sri K.Vidyasagar, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, placed before the Court a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Council for Teacher Education and others v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashiksham Sansthan and others[1], wherein after a thorough analysis of the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, it is inter alia held that the provisions contained in Section 14 and the Regulations framed for grant of recognition, including the requirement of recommendation of the State Government/Union Territory Administration, are mandatory and that an institution is not entitled to recognition unless it fulfills the conditions specified in various clauses of the Regulations. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute this legal position settled by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment. In this view of the matter, the action of respondent No.1 in closing the petitioner’s application on the strength of the opinion expressed by respondent No.2 is in consonance with the law declared by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.15235 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th July, 2011 VGB [1] 2011 (3) SCC 238